Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SHREWSBURY AND ATCHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

EU Troika Visits (Great Lakes and East Timor)

Ann Clwyd: If he will make a statement on the EU troika visits to the great lakes and to East Timor. [44513]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): I apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is attending the Cardiff European Council.
The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), led a three-day EU troika visit to Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and the Democratic Republic of the Congo on 2 to 4 June. The troika had productive meetings with the Presidents of each of the four countries. It reiterated the EU's commitment to promoting stability; security; democracy; respect for the rule of law and human rights; and economic development for the benefit of the great lakes region.
The EU heads of mission troika visit to East Timor, scheduled for early June, has been postponed because of Indonesian security concerns. We hope to reinstate the visit as soon as possible.

Ann Clwyd: On East Timor, does my hon. Friend agree that there is now a real opportunity to solve the long-standing problem of that very unfortunate country? Does he agree that President Habibie's suggestion of special status for East Timor within Indonesia falls far short of the right of the people of East Timor to a referendum, to allow them to determine their future and choose self-determination if they wish, as is their right under international law and United Nations resolutions?

Mr. Fatchett: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's first comments. We now have a window of opportunity to

make progress in resolving the long-standing issue of the status of East Timor. During my recent visit to Indonesia, I took the opportunity to make that point to Foreign Minister Alatas. I was pleased to note signs of movement in Indonesia—specifically, the release of political prisoners.
My hon. Friend will also be pleased to know that I had the opportunity to meet Xanana Gusmao, who talked to me about his views on the development of East Timor. He was in good health, and I asked the Indonesian Government for his early release, with that of other political prisoners.

China

Mr. Norman Baker: What assessment he has made of the effect of his policy of dialogue with China on its human rights record. [44514]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): We believe that our policy of dialogue, which we have pursued both bilaterally and within the European Union, supported by practical assistance, is beginning to produce results. China has taken several positive steps which we hope will bring about increasingly close co-operation with United Nations human rights mechanisms and will lead to practical improvements in areas such as the administration of justice.

Mr. Baker: Is it not the case that promises by the present Chinese Government are not worth the paper on which they are written? Will the Minister accept that the present Chinese Government are characterised by a total disregard for human rights, as demonstrated by the imprisonment of political prisoners in so-called re-education camps, by the torture of monks and nuns in Tibet and by the eradication of most things Tibetan? Is it not the case that, by failing to pursue a UN resolution, the Government have virtually given the green light to the continuation of human rights abuses and told the Chinese that economic interests are more important than human rights? Although the Government may mean well, is that not in fact an ethical foreign policy in reverse?

Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman draws totally incorrect conclusions in the last part of his question. The Government continue to press the human rights agenda with China. At every available opportunity, we talk about the need to improve human rights. As I said in response to the hon. Gentleman's main question, there are practical signs of improvements that we have achieved. However, it would be foolish of us to say that all is well. There is a great deal more to be done on human rights, and we shall continue to argue strongly for it.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for his response. The visit by the Chinese delegation arranged by the Inter-Parliamentary Union did a great deal of good in strengthening relations between China and the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend made a substantial contribution to that visit. Does he agree that such visits are the way to resolve the human rights problems and other issues in China? Long may the relationship between the UK and China continue.

Mr. Fatchett: It is important that we maintain and broaden the dialogue at all levels and take every


opportunity to stress our concerns about human rights in China. I know that my hon. Friend, as part of the all-party China group, has taken every opportunity to speak about those concerns and to press the human rights agenda.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Is not China's human rights record still abysmal—in particular, as it relates to the one child per family policy, which enforces abortion up to full term and continues to discriminate against baby girls? When will the Government take much more positive action in their dialogue with the Chinese Government, who understand only force and pressure? Sadly, so far, we have seen no improvement in the human rights record.

Mr. Fatchett: I reiterate that we take every opportunity to raise those issues. I shall list for the hon. Lady what we have achieved over the past few months. We have persuaded China to sign up to the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. We have persuaded China that human rights in Hong Kong will be reported on separately. We have persuaded China to accept a visit from the United Nations High Commissioner, Mary Robinson. All those are successful steps forward. I am the first to admit, together with the hon. Lady, that there is a long way to go, but we believe that dialogue is the best way to make progress.

Kosovo

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: If he will make a statement on the situation in Kosovo. [44515]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): We remain deeply concerned about the extreme violence and indiscriminate attacks on civilians in Kosovo. I visited Belgrade and Pristina last week and urged both the Serbian Government and the Kosovar Albanians to find a peaceful way forward. The contact group of Foreign Ministers met in London on Friday and agreed that, if Belgrade did not take steps without delay, there would be moves to further measures to halt the violence, including those that may require the authorisation of the United Nations Security Council. We welcome the meeting in Moscow today between Presidents Yeltsin and Milosevic. President Milosevic must realise that there will be no let-up in international pressure until he takes steps to end the violence and resolve the problems of Kosovo peacefully at the negotiating table.

Mr. Cunliffe: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's statement and the initiative taken by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to bring world leaders together on this great humanitarian issue. Some people believe, however, that NATO shadow boxing will not bring that tyrant to his knees. Some of us think that a man who, for a decade and a half, has practised the detestable system of ethnic cleansing will not be easily frightened by such manoeuvres. Is it not time that we stopped pussy-footing around and issued an ultimatum to that gangster saying that unless he stops the repression in Kosovo, we will commence military action?

Mr. Lloyd: The contact group has already gone a long way beyond simple condemnation of the actions of the

Government in Yugoslavia. The contact group and the European Union have already begun the imposition of an investment ban and an assets freeze. A ban on air flights from Yugoslavia is under consideration. NATO is considering what steps it can take. Yesterday, for example, Operation Determined Falcon took place in airspace not over Yugoslavia but over the neighbouring countries. That was a real measure of NATO's determination. I assure the House that contingency planning by NATO continues. President Milosevic cannot claim—and nor should the world believe—that he has not been properly warned.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Whatever the great provocation, will Ministers think very long and carefully before committing the British Government to supporting direct military attacks on Serbia unless that policy has the support of the Russian Government and the United Nations Security Council? We should bear it in mind that the Kaiser is a poor role model in such matters and that many countries in other parts of the world might be attracted to the idea of taking what they regarded as just military action if United Nations support was not always considered essential.

Mr. Lloyd: There is no doubt that the resolution of this situation is now in the hands of President Milosevic: he should end the violence now. He should withdraw the security forces from Kosovo and allow in the international monitors and humanitarian agencies. If President Milosevic takes that agenda on board, we will begin to make progress. That is the right way forward. However, I think the House understands that options have not been ruled out at this stage.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What exactly would be achieved by air strikes?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend enters the realm of speculation. Actions have not been ruled out: at this moment, NATO is examining all credible options. However, the resolution of the present crisis clearly lies in the hands of President Milosevic. If he does the things that I have outlined—if he makes it clear that he intends to enter into meaningful and time-limited dialogue with the Kosovar Albanians—we will be able to resolve the crisis instantly. Beyond that, I shall not stand before the House and say that we are prepared to rule out credible options at this stage.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Minister agree that the diplomatic steps taken today will work only if President Milosevic discontinues his brutality towards civilians in Kosovo and accepts that the status quo is no longer an option and that the autonomy of the province is inevitable? If those diplomatic steps are effective, will it not be another illustration of the principle enunciated earlier this year by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Kofi Annan, that diplomacy is at its most effective when it is supported by a credible military threat?

Mr. Lloyd: We have received some reports of today's meeting between Presidents Yeltsin and Milosevic. For example, it is reported that President Milosevic has agreed to negotiate with the Kosovar Albanians, but at present it


is impossible to say whether that amounts to anything new. In that context, we await confirmation from President Milosevic. The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right: if we were to say at this stage that we will not contemplate certain credible options, we would be playing into the hands of President Milosevic, and—I must also say—the extreme voices among the Kosovar Albanians.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Will the Minister assure the House that any action taken will be consistent with the United Nations charter and will be designed not to inflame existing tensions in that very difficult region? Will he assure the House that further assistance will be given to the Government of Macedonia and that steps will be taken to assist the refugees who are at present in Albania—as well as other measures that may be necessary in order to try to resolve the conflict?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend has asked several important questions. Britain has certainly been active in seeking to bring a resolution before the United Nations Security Council. However, the actions taken by the international community will depend very much on the circumstances on the ground at the time. They will determine what actions are acceptable and permissible. The position of Macedonia, with its large number of permanently resident Albanians, requires considerable attention. We need to ensure that Macedonia has the monitoring that it needs, which will include a continuation of the military presence in that monitoring operation.
My hon. Friend asks about the position of displaced persons already within Kosovo and elsewhere in Yugoslavia. The best answer to that would be if the humanitarian agencies such as the Red Cross were allowed in and enabled to do the work that they do better than anybody else.

Mr. Michael Howard: Can the Minister tell us anything about the progress of the European Union monitoring mission? The hon. Gentleman will know that I asked the Government to take a lead in pressing for monitors to be allowed into Kosovo as long ago as 10 March. Has any progress been made?
Will the Minister now answer the question that he has twice failed to answer: do the Government accept the view that no military action can take place without the authority of a resolution of the United Nations Security Council?

Mr. Lloyd: I pressed exactly that point with the Yugoslavian Government last week. At present, they have not given the freedom for monitors to travel that we expect of them. At a European level, we are prepared to deploy 18 more monitors immediately, with more to follow in due course. The spirit of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question is absolutely right. We need monitors on the ground so that we can be assured that violence against the civilian population has at last come to a halt. That is a necessary precondition for all else to follow.
In terms of action at the United Nations, Britain is extremely active in seeking a suitable resolution. However, the exact course of action that will be taken by

the international community in the end will depend on the circumstances that confront it at the time when that action takes place.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: So that there be no misunderstanding, is it the position of the British Government that we believe that Serbia should retain sovereignty over Kosovo?

Mr. Lloyd: So that there be no misunderstanding, let me say that the position of the international community has been consistent. We have called for meaningful negotiations between the Government in Belgrade and the Kosovar Albanians, under the leadership of Dr. Rugova, on the basis that there must be autonomy for the Kosovar Albanians within the context of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Central and Eastern Europe

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: What help is being provided through his Department to central and eastern European countries to fund political education. [44516]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson): We are committed to supporting the democratic development of the countries of central and eastern Europe. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office provides grant in aid to organisations such as the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, the British Association for Central and Eastern Europe and the Britain-Russia centre.
The Government also fund democracy-building and civic education programmes directly through a wide range of departmental programmes, including the former know-how fund political projects fund, the Europe command project budget, the human rights project fund and the east-west contacts fund.

Mrs. Lait: I thank the Minister for that information. Are funds available to help groups that wish to improve political campaigning in central and eastern European countries? Will groups such as the European Union of Women, which next week is bringing over a group of Russian women politicians, be able to receive Foreign Office funds to help them in their efforts to improve campaigning, canvassing and fundraising among the political parties in central and eastern European countries?

Mr. Henderson: Where there are meaningful projects that could be taken up, funding could be available to all political parties that wish to link up. Through the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, £411,000 was spent on central and eastern European development last year. A sum at least equivalent to that is available again this year.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: In welcoming any assistance that we can give to countries overseas in developing their democracies, does my hon. Friend agree with me that we should be a little cautious in this country—certainly the Tories should be very modest in any advice that they give to countries overseas about democracy—so long as we have a system where the second Chamber has more than 700 Members who have inherited the right to legislate?

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I think, as he does, that one must be


extremely cautious in offering advice to colleagues in other countries. The worst thing that any of us could do would be to adopt a post-imperialist approach whereby we tell other people what is good for them. We must lay out examples of what we think we do well; it is up to others to decide whether they think they can learn from them.

Mr. Ian Taylor: I am rather saddened that the Minister has indulged in petty politics, which is far removed from the objectives of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, of which I am a past governor, and the educational organisation to which he referred. This country has a lot to be proud of in its democratic processes. I challenge Labour Back Benchers, if they are about to reform the House of Lords, to say which of this Chamber's powers they would be prepared to transfer to an elected upper Chamber.
These are serious questions, but the principal point is that we have to transfer the deep roots of our democracy into those countries to create stability in Europe. Does the Minister understand the imperative to enlarge the European Union to embrace those countries with new democratic principles, and is he aware of the cost that achieving that will put on the wealthier members of the EU?

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman has raised a wide agenda. I have always believed that it is important to build contacts with colleagues in those countries, not only so that they can learn the technical aspects of building a democracy and of guaranteeing human rights, but so that there can be political dialogue, understanding and the building of attitudes, which are important in issues such as enlargement of the EU. The Government strongly support that, and want proper funding to be in place to achieve it.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will my hon. Friend consider the fact that the £3 million given to the Westminster Foundation for Democracy is insufficient? I understand that the foundation intends to reduce its operation in central Europe because of demands elsewhere, which I fully appreciate, but there is an on-going need to train politicians and local activists in central Europe: Hungary has a new Government; there are extensive regional and local government elections; and new structures are being created in Poland, which is a key player. Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that it would be foolhardy in the extreme for us to reduce our commitment to, and support for, democratic institutions and parties in central Europe?

Mr. Henderson: The grants that are made available to organisations such as the Westminster foundation are constantly under review. What is examined is how effective those organisations have been in disbursing moneys in a meaningful way, and we shall continue to monitor that. If a case can be made for an extension, we will, of course, consider it.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the Minister pay tribute to the establishment of the know-how fund by the previous Administration and acknowledge what an extraordinary success it has been? Will he accept bids for places for people from central and eastern Europe to

attend political courses at English universities, where they would have the chance not only to receive admirable teaching, but to savour the atmosphere of a true and extremely sophisticated democracy?

Mr. Henderson: I very much support the hon. Gentleman's aim of an exchange of students between central and eastern European countries and Britain. There are not many things for which I would pay tribute to the previous Conservative Government—but setting up the know-how fund is one of them.

EU Reform

Mr. Tom Levitt: What recent discussions he has had with his counterparts about reform of the European Union. [44517]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson): We have regular discussions with our European counterparts about a wide range of issues dealing with reform of the European Union.

Mr. Levitt: I am sure that the leadership that the Government have shown to the EU during their presidency will have been noted throughout Europe and beyond, and many people in many countries will have welcomed the fact that the Labour party, rather than the Conservative party, was in a position to give such leadership. What stage has been reached on enlargement in the discussions that my hon. Friend has had, and will he comment on the preparations that the countries of central and eastern Europe—especially Poland, which we all want as a partner—are making for joining the EU?

Mr. Henderson: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance that the Government have attached to the enlargement procedures in the European Union, which have been pushed hard for the past six months. That will be reflected in the conclusions of the Cardiff summit, which were made available only after 2.30 pm, so I was not furnished with them before I came to the House. I think that the Prime Minister will make a statement to the House later in the week, when he will clarify those conclusions.
I have been impressed by the preparations that have been made by all the countries that are negotiating to join the European Union. I recently visited Poland and I was excited by the fact that people saw EU membership as a great opportunity. They were prepared to make changes to their life style and to their democracy, to make changes to guarantee human rights, and to make the big changes required in their economy, including in their steel industry. I am confident that, through dialogue with the European Union in the coming years, Poland will accede successfully.

Dr. Julian Lewis: In his discussions on the reform of the European Union, has the Prime Minister taken into account the massive opposition to economic and monetary union shown by British public opinion? In particular, is the Minister aware of the result of the Gallup poll published today, which shows that only 33 per cent. of the British people support the abolition of


the pound and our entry into economic and monetary union, whereas 65 per cent. oppose it and only 2 per cent. are now undecided?

Mr. Henderson: The establishment of the single currency has been one of the main issues that the European Union has considered over the past six months.

Dr. Lewis: And longer.

Mr. Henderson: Yes, and longer. There is an understanding among the leaders of Europe—I am confident that it will be reflected in the conclusions of the Cardiff summit—that a strong structure to the single currency has been established and that it will serve well the 11 countries that will join it on 1 January and those countries that may exercise an option to join it at a later stage. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made the British Government's position clear. When we have been able to assess whether convergence has taken place—after the next general election—a judgment will be made on whether it is in Britain's economic interest to join the single currency. It is against that background that the Cardiff talks have taken place in the past two days. All the leaders have been keen to assess the views of the business community and ordinary people. Contrary to the result of the poll to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I sense a growing understanding of what the euro would mean for life styles.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Do Her Majesty's Government accept any money from the European Commission for the propagation of the view that the euro is an advantage rather than a disadvantage? If so, what opportunities will be taken to ensure that the British people understand the implications of the actions of any Government who hand over their taxation and finance powers without being clear about the political cost to their country?

Mr. Henderson: The European Commission disburses the funds that it controls for that purpose among the partner nations of the European Union. One factor that it takes into account is the view of the Government of each country. Over the next three years, we shall discuss macro-economic policy, the establishment of the euro and whether it is in Britain's interest to join. The Government want to guarantee that all those who will eventually have a say—the public will have a say through a referendum—are fully informed about what it will mean for their life styles and their workplaces.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the reform of the European Union. Do such discussions include the protection of the rights of citizenship throughout the world of citizens of the European Union? Has any approach been made to the Government of Morocco on the false allegations and extraordinary penalties imposed on European citizens, including a British citizen, Dr. Graham Hutt?

Mr. Henderson: I am not quite sure of the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. In all its dealings, the European Union seeks to ensure that international standards are upheld. That applies to the matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Is the Minister aware that the reform of Community structural funds and initiatives is taking place at a time when parts of Wales, and other areas of the United Kingdom, will for the first time qualify for objective l status? Will he and his departmental colleagues ensure, as the reform proceeds, that none of those areas' applications will be disadvantaged?

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that issue and its importance to the people of Wales. Its importance was made clear to me not only in last week's debate in the House, but during my visit to Cardiff over the past two days.
There are, in fact, two issues. First, we must ask whether in the redrawing of boundaries throughout the United Kingdom, which is essentially an administrative act, a fair system is being proposed. We must also ask, when the commission reaches a conclusion, whether a fair system has been agreed—whether the system compares Wales favourably in administrative terms and how boundaries have been drawn in other European Union countries. That is the first test. The Government will want to ensure through Eurostat, the organisation that will deal with the arrangements, that a fair system has applied. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government have supported submissions from Wales for a redrawing of boundaries to allow the possibility of objective 1 status for part of the country.
The second issue is the reform of the structural funds system. It will take place and I expect that, following the conclusions at Cardiff, a timetable will be drawn up allowing it to be agreed before the European Parliament is dissolved for the elections in March or April. Within that timetable, the Government aim to ensure that a fair system of structural funds is agreed so that once funds have been allocated to help the countries of central and eastern Europe—which will need additional funding during the accession process—the rest of the cake can be disbursed fairly, which includes taking into account the requirements of Wales.

Mr. Michael Trend: I am sorry to learn that the Foreign Secretary is sharing Council resolutions with the world before sharing them with his own Ministers. Does that mean that there will definitely not be a full-time report on the flop of this presidency. as there was a ludicrous half-time report, that shows what a wasted exercise it has been?
Can the Minister confirm the report in The Times yesterday that no Foreign Office Ministers participated a fortnight ago in discussions of a major review of European policy and the way forward at No. 10 Downing street? Is that not the final indignity for the Foreign Secretary and his team?

Mr. Henderson: It would be a bit difficult for me to be in Cardiff with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for the last hour or so of the summit's conclusions and in the House of Commons to answer questions. If the hon. Gentleman has any suggestions about how I could have achieved that, I am willing to entertain them.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the future of the European Union is a major issue that affects all the states in Europe. The British Government treat it as a top


priority and there have been extensive discussions among a number of Departments about some of the issues that will arise in the next six months and beyond.

Nuclear Tests (South Asia)

Mr. Peter L. Pike: What recent discussions he has had with representatives of the Pakistan and Indian Governments in connection with their nuclear tests. [44518]

Mr. Laurence Robertson: If he will make a statement on the discussions he has had with the Indian and Pakistan Governments in relation to nuclear tests. [44522]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): We have had a number of discussions with the Pakistan and Indian high commissions in London and with other representatives of their Governments. This morning, I had a meeting here in London with the Prime Minister of Pakistan.

Mr. Pike: When the Foreign Secretary was with his colleagues in the G8 last week, were they able to agree on joint steps to persuade Pakistan and India that there should be no more tests, that moves should take place towards non-proliferation and that they should address the roots of the problems between the two nations, including the problem of Kashmir?

Mr. Fatchett: The G8 Ministers meeting last week succeeded in reaching those agenda conclusions. In particular, we urged the Governments of India and Pakistan to sign the non-proliferation and test ban treaties. We also made a point that I made to the Pakistan Prime Minister this morning—that it is crucial for us to enter a dialogue with India and Pakistan so that they can deal with the fundamental issues that have divided them over the past 50 years. Resolving the Kashmir issue is an important part of that agenda.

Mr. Robertson: As the testing has serious implications for the environment, for peace and indeed for trade, will the Minister clarify press statements that India is prepared to sign up to some parts of the test ban treaty? If no progress can be made, will he assure the House that he will take every. possible step to ask the United Nations Security Council to take whatever measures may be necessary?

Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman mentions the position that has been taken by the Indian Government—that they would be willing to consider signing up to parts of the non-proliferation treaty. That is unacceptable to the permanent five and the G8. We have made that view clear to India. We cannot have an a la carte approach to the non-proliferation treaty. The same message has been delivered to Pakistan.
The hon. Gentleman mentions UN involvement. The P5 has already been involved in those issues and, through senior officials we established at last week's G8 meeting, there will be continued monitoring of progress and developments. We will consider what further action has to be taken.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I support what my hon. Friend has said about condemning the tests

conducted by both India and Pakistan, but does he not think that the position of the big five nuclear powers in that condemnation would be stronger if they were seen to be actively disarming and disabling their nuclear weapons? If we want to live, as we all do, in a nuclear-free world, perhaps we should make a start in that direction.

Mr. Fatchett: It is crucial that we continue the nuclear disarmament talks. The Government have taken a responsible and active role in that approach and will continue to do so. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that the security of ordinary people in south Asia has in no way been helped by the nuclear explosions detonated by the Governments of India and Pakistan. In many ways, those people are more insecure and more impoverished as a result of the actions that have been taken by their Governments.

Mr. Michael Colvin: Will the Minister confirm that these tests mean that the Indian state of Kashmir is surrounded by nuclear powers: India, Pakistan and the People's Republic of China? Will he acknowledge that the problem—that is what it is—of Kashmir arose under an earlier Labour Administration? Will he confirm that the Government will make every effort to ensure that Kashmir is on the UN Security Council's agenda so that the people of Kashmir can be granted the plebiscite on their future that they have been denied for the past 50 years?

Mr. Fatchett: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a genuine interest in the issue of Kashmir and in the welfare of its people. We recognise that Kashmir is at the heart of the continuing difficulties between India and Pakistan. If we are to improve the relationship between the two countries, we have to address the problems that are created by the status of Kashmir.

Great Lakes

Mr. Kevin Barron: What steps his Department is taking to help bring stability to the great lakes region of Africa. [44519]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), gave a few minutes ago concerning the EU troika visit to the great lakes region. The troika urged regional leaders to pursue negotiated solutions to their problems and to avoid any recourse to the use of violence. Bilaterally, we are currently providing financial assistance to the Burundi peace talks, which are due to convene in Arusha from 15 June. We are also funding a number of initiatives in the justice sector in Rwanda and are the largest bilateral donor to United Nations human rights field operations in the region. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the EU and the UK are supporting, both financially and politically, the democratic transition process.

Mr. Barron: Will my hon. Friend expand on what steps the Government are taking to support the international tribunal for Rwanda? Does he agree that before reconciliation can take place in that country the


people who perpetrated the genocide in that part of Africa need to be brought to justice? That must happen before there can be reconciliation between the Tutsis and Hutus.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right that the process of reconciliation depends absolutely on justice being not only seen to be done, but put into proper operation. That is why this Government, along with many others, are making significant contributions to the international criminal tribunal for Rwanda, which is sitting in Arusha.
We have not only provided £400,000 as our assessed contribution to the tribunal, but seconded two British police officers to help with the investigation. We are also specifically sponsoring a programme of visits by magistrates, social workers and non-governmental organisations from Rwanda to the tribunal so that they can see that the justice process is taking place.
We also welcomed the recent guilty plea by the former Rwandan Prime Minister, which has moved the process on. I can tell my hon. Friend that we shall continue to support the tribunal —which itself provides a good prelude to an international criminal court, the basis of which is now being discussed in Rome. Such a court will be another important step on the road to international justice.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Minister will know that the United Kingdom has unique experience of Africa and that we probably have greater knowledge and experience of it than any other country in the world. Bearing in mind that experience and our continuing involvement with the Governments of many countries that have recently gained independence, does the Minister think that the countries with which we have been involved will be able to have any influence in the countries of the great lakes region in establishing law and a meaningful form of democratic government that will be acceptable to the people of Africa as a whole?

Mr. Lloyd: The answer, of course, is yes. Some of the states in the great lakes region are playing a very constructive role in the region. Specifically, the regional powers have brought to bear enormous pressure on the Government of Burundi to persuade them to enter a meaningful internal dialogue with the national assembly. That pressure has now resulted in a negotiated process in Arusha. I should pay tribute to former President Nyerere of Tanzania, whose individual contribution to the process has perhaps been more significant than that of anyone else. He is helping the talks reach a successful conclusion. The region, and the world, will owe him a debt.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: The stability of the great lakes region is inextricably linked to political developments throughout the area, and current events continue to highlight the region's fragility and vulnerability. In the light of natural concerns about the consequences of future political change, will the Minister tell us the Government's attitude towards the multi-democracy movement in Uganda?

Mr. Lloyd: I should like first to welcome the hon. Lady to her new responsibilities. I am sure that this is not the last time that we shall exchange views across the Dispatch Box. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!") Well, I trust that she will be on the Opposition Front Bench again. She raised a very important point. There are many views on evolution of

the democratic process on the African continent. Some time ago, when I was in Uganda, I made it clear that we favour an electoral process being established whereby the Ugandan people are sovereign, those who wish to stand for election are able to do so and the people of Uganda are able to vote for the candidate of their choice. I am sure that all hon. Members will endorse those principles.

Sierra Leone

Mr. Dennis Skinner: When he expects to receive Sir Thomas Legg's report on arms sales to Sierra Leone; and if he will make a statement. [44521]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): Sir Thomas Legg has said that he will complete his investigation and report as soon as possible. He is currently interviewing witnesses and examining evidence.

Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister agree that, in many ways, the matter is really a story about the British intelligence services—which believe that they are answerable to no one when they are meddling abroad—and high-flying civil servants straight off the cast of "Yes, Minister", at least one of whom says that he cannot read his own memory? Is it not also about a shadow Foreign Secretary who believes that he has discovered some great defining issue in the lifetime of a Labour Government whereas, in reality, he is like a dog in the gutter that keeps returning to its vomit?

Mr. Lloyd: I was tempted to agree with my hon. Friend, at least on the shadow Foreign Secretary, but he invited me to go a little too far. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend has touched on the remarkable contrast between the shadow Foreign Secretary's view that he has chanced upon his Scott report and reality—

Mr. Ian Bruce: Nothing like.

Mr. Lloyd: Nothing like, as the hon. Gentleman says. Scott, of course, was a deliberate cover-up by Ministers. That Government deliberately chose to supply arms to Iraq, a regime that went to war with Britain in due course. It was a deliberate attempt to mislead Parliament. The contrast is remarkable. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not been able to demonstrate, because he cannot, that Ministers colluded, that Ministers sought to provide arms or that Ministers sought to break the United Nations embargo—or that Ministers even sought to mislead either the House of Commons or the House of Lords. That is the difference. I shall be interested to see whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman welcomes the fact that, when he comes shortly to read the conclusions of the Legg report, he will not be locked in a room for a few minutes to review that investigation, but will have the chance to read it properly and to come before the House to say that he is sorry.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the Minister give us an assurance that Sir Thomas Legg will examine the relationship between all officials in the Foreign Office and Customs and Excise while he is conducting his inquiry?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, of course. Sir Thomas Legg's remit is already public. Sir Thomas has already begun his


investigations. He has access to all officials, to all the papers that he chooses to review and, very important, to all Ministers. I and my colleagues are looking forward to the opportunity to give evidence to Sir Thomas.

Mr. David Winnick: Did my hon. Friend notice the warm and enthusiastic welcome that the British high commissioner to Sierra Leone received on his return because the people there identify him with the return of democracy and hold us in the highest regard? Is not it nonsense to say that when the arms embargo was agreed by the United Nations it was on the basis that there would be no difference between the dictatorship that had taken over and the democratic forces? Surely there is all the difference in the world, as there was when there was an arms embargo against apartheid in South Africa—which hardly involved those who were fighting the regime.

Mr. Lloyd: Let me make it absolutely clear that the return of the high commissioner to Sierra Leone was recognised by the people of Sierra Leone as significant because his role and, indeed, that of the British Government was critical in the return of the democratically elected President to that country. That is something that the people of Sierra Leone do not want to forget, although Opposition parties try on occasion to deflect the issue.
It is important to place one point on the record. Much has been made of what I previously told the House. I said on 12 March:
The suggestion that Britain was conspiring with hired killers is wrong".—[Official Report, 12 March 1998; Vol. 308, c. 844.]
It was absolutely right to say that then. It was wrong to suggest that we had conspired with hired killers, and it is wrong. We do not conspire and we do not work with mercenaries.

Mr. Michael Howard: The Minister and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) appear to have forgotten that we are discussing matters that the Foreign Secretary described as "grave" and "serious". Baroness Symons told the other place yesterday that before she answered questions on 10 March she was briefed about allegations of illegal arms shipments being referred to the appropriate authorities. Does the Minister still maintain that he had no such briefing although he actually visited Sierra Leone at the end of that month? If he did not, has he established why?

Mr. Lloyd: I am really astonished by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's line of questioning. I recently told the House:
At that time, I was not briefed, told, advised or in any way informed either orally or in writing of alleged arms shipments or of the Customs and Excise inquiry."—[Official Report, 14 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 537.]
If that form of words is not comprehensive, I invite the right hon. and learned Gentleman for goodness' sake to come and tell me what more he wants. It is absolutely clear. It is before the House of Commons and before Sir Thomas Legg. When I appear before Sir Thomas Legg, I will repeat that form of words and he will be able to establish the truth. That will come back to the House.
At that point, I trust that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have the good grace to withdraw his outrageous remarks.

Mr. Howard: Has the Minister established the reason for that astonishing failure to brief him?

Mr. Lloyd: rose—

Mr. Denis MacShane: He has already had two questions.

Madam Speaker: Order. The Opposition Front Bench is perfectly entitled to another question, otherwise I would not have called the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). I determine the allocations allowed for those on the Front Bench.

Mr. Lloyd: I do not want to fail to answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question. Unfortunately, I did not hear it because of the noise.

Mr. Howard: Has the Minister established the reason for the astonishing failure to brief him on something that was clearly relevant to his visit to Sierra Leone?

Mr. Lloyd: I realise that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is in full flight in pursuit of what he feels is his political moment. Unfortunately, he is chasing the wrong target. His question will be comprehensively answered when Sir Thomas Legg publishes his report. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will then realise that his Scott report is simply a chimera, as is his political future.

Myanmar

Mr. Clive Soley: What recent contacts he has had with the Myanmar Government concerning the restoration of democracy and the rule of law. [44523]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): We regularly raise our concerns with the Burmese Government. Our ambassador in Rangoon had discussions with the Burmese Foreign Minister most recently on 4 May. He also remains in regular contact with opposition leaders, including Aung San Suu Kyi. We have used our European Union presidency to renew EU measures against the regime and drafted this year's United Nations Commission on Human Rights resolution on Burma.

Mr. Soley: I am pleased to hear that reply and am anxious that the name of Aung San Suu Kyi should not fall out of the news again. Have we been able to use our influence with the Association of South-East Asian Nations, which could apply pressure to ensure change in the regime?

Mr. Fatchett: In all our contacts with ASEAN countries we impress on them our view that there is a need for democratic change in Burma—the need to recognise the role of the opposition parties and the important contribution to the future of Burma that could be made by Aung San Suu Kyi. We want the ASEAN


nations to resolve the matter internally. The United Kingdom Government and the European Union have taken their position. We consider Burma's violation of human rights wholly unacceptable and we shall continue to put that message across to all those in ASEAN and elsewhere who will listen.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister pay tribute to the vernacular language transmissions of the BBC World Service to Burma? Has he been able to assess their effectiveness in at least influencing some people in Burma to look for a restoration of democracy?

Mr. Fatchett: I am always glad to pay tribute to the work of the BBC World Service, which makes an important contribution not just in communicating British values and democratic values, but in ensuring that many people in many parts of the world hear an objective news service that would otherwise be denied them. That is true in Burma, as in many other countries. I hope that it has had some impression on those who have power in Burma. I am afraid that I cannot be over-optimistic about that, but we shall continue to work towards the same objective.

Middle East Peace Process

Mr. Andrew Dismore: What progress has been made in the middle east peace process. [44524]

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: What progress has been made in the middle east peace process. [44530]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): Concern has been expressed at the Cardiff European Council about the continuing deadlock in the middle east peace process and the threat that that poses to the stability of the region. We have reiterated our strong support for the efforts of the United States to gain the agreement of the parties to a package of proposals which, if accepted, would open the way to the relaunch of final status talks. We have welcomed Palestinian acceptance of those proposals and continue to call on the Government of Israel to give a

clear and positive response. The European Council also welcomed the increasingly substantive role of the EU under the UK presidency.

Mr. Dismore: Does my hon. Friend agree that economic stability is fundamental to Israel and the Palestinians—a fact recognised by both sides? Does he also agree that we should make as much progress as quickly as possible towards the final EU-Israel association agreement, which would make a major contribution to promoting and maintaining the economic stability that is so necessary to the peace process?

Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend will know that the EU-Israel association agreement has been ratified in the House and undergone all the United Kingdom parliamentary procedures. That is true for the overwhelming majority of European Union countries. It is not true, however, for Belgium and France. The process is therefore held up in those two countries.

Dr. Starkey: Land for peace is a crucial element of the middle east peace process. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Israeli Government appear to be trying to pre-empt the final settlement by extending illegal settlements across the whole of the west bank, with the associated road building, and by continuing planning policies in east Jerusalem that are changing the demographic balance between the Arab and Jewish populations to the detriment of the Arab population? Is he particularly concerned about the danger posed by the Israeli Government's plans for the E1 site, a huge site adjacent to Har Homa, which, if developed, would cut the Palestinian area in two?

Mr. Fatchett: We have always accepted the principle that land for peace is the basis for progress between the Israelis and the Palestinians. That is why we have continued to urge further redeployments by the Israeli Government. We hope—we have said so on many occasions—that they will take the United States' suggested offer, which is on the table. That is the way to make progress. We have also made it abundantly clear that we see the settlement development as inimical to the peace process and illegal in international law. We again urge the Israelis to stop the settlement development. Otherwise, it is impossible to achieve further redeployments and meet the Oslo principles, which we consider so important.

Legal Aid (Reform)

Mr. John Bercow: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to place restrictions on the granting of legal aid to persons resident outside, or not paying tax in, the United Kingdom: and for connected purposes.
The case for reform of the legal aid system is widely accepted across the House. The argument between the Government and the Opposition is about the means by which most effectively to do so.
The background to the present problem is well understood: an exponential rise in the legal aid budget over the past six years. As the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has pointed out, the budget stood at £682 million as recently as 1990–91. By 1996–97, it had ballooned to an alarming £1,477 million. To place the matter in context, one observes that the budget for civil legal aid and family cases has tripled over that six-year period to £671 million. The average cost of pursuing those legally aided cases has risen by 53 per cent. over and above inflation. Yet, at the same time, 39,000 fewer pieces of legal advice or representation have been provided. In short, it is true that, as the Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out, we have been paying more, but getting less. That clearly cannot be expected to continue.
In defending the Government's consultation paper, "Access to Justice with Conditional Fees", the Parliamentary Secretary told us that the Government wanted
to focus taxpayers' money where it is most needed and can do most good".—[Official Report, 4 March 1998; Vol. 307, c. 1060.]
He went on to contend that, in his judgment and that of the Government, they could do most productive good for the British people in the area of social welfare—employment matters, housing, tackling debt-related problems, benefit entitlement and, in some cases, pursuing actions against bureaucracy and officialdom. I do not necessarily disagree with that analysis. The Parliamentary Secretary was making a reasonable point, although we differ about whether the Government's announced, and thus far largely unamended, proposals will achieve the reasonable objectives that the Government have established.
In response to the statement by the Parliamentary Secretary, his shadow, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier), observed that the Government's plans were
ill thought out, socially divisive, economically illiterate and politically inept".—[Official Report, 4 March 1998; Vol. 307, c. 1063.]
My natural restraint and moderation, which are familiar throughout the Chamber, are such that 1 do not intend today to indulge in such an arsenal of aggressive adjectives to describe the likely outcome of the Government's policies. I content myself with observing that in all the debates on these matters, little, if any, reference has been made to whether specific categories of persons should not be eligible for legal aid or should face greater restrictions before being able to secure it. That is a reasonable proposition—I put it no more strongly than that—for the House to consider.
We are all familiar with the old saying, "No taxation without representation." There must be an argument that we are entitled—perhaps morally obliged—as an elected

legislature to impose some restrictions on the rights to representation in British courts of people who neither ordinarily live nor pay taxation in the United Kingdom. That seems a reasonable proposition.
In preparing this Bill, I naturally inquired about how many people might be covered by legal aid in the category which forms its essence. I was sorry, and somewhat surprised, to discover that there are no collated statistics on people who do not live or pay tax in the UK, but nevertheless receive legal aid. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) chunters from a sedentary position that he thinks that that is a satisfactory state of affairs, but I do not. I make no criticism of the Legal Aid Board for failing to keep statistics because living or paying tax in the UK is not a legal criterion for applying for or granting legal aid. However, if we are in favour of transparency and openness, as the Government say that they are, those factors are relevant. A public register should be established to record who has applied for and received legal aid. It would categorise and explain the cases of those who do not live or pay tax in the UK but who nevertheless receive help. My first concern, therefore, is that there is no public information.
My second concern is that although there are no overall collated statistics, we know that 67,175 bills had to be paid in respect of immigration and nationality cases in 1996–97, which constituted only 4 per cent. of the total legal aid budget. Significantly, I remind the House, and Conservative Members in particular, it amounted to a 45 per cent. increase in such cases over three years.
My third concern is whether we get value for money in respect of such cases. The sad answer is that we do not know. Although individuals, including lawyers, may be sceptical of whether legal aid should continue to be granted for particular cases or of whether such aid should be granted in the first instance, and although they can apply to the Legal Aid Board for a review of the decision to provide such funding, the board does not have to give reasons for its decisions. It can decline to review the provision of legal aid and give no reason for its decision.
My fourth concern, which underlines the importance of the Bill, is that there is reason to believe that legal aid is being abused. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough made that point on 21 November 1997 at column 553 in a debate on legal aid when he drew attention to the fact that the judges in the divisional courts regularly complained about hopeless immigration cases being brought before them. Someone had been prepared to sign the certificate, and legal aid—public money—had been provided for the reconsideration of cases that had no merit. Merit is supposed to be a criterion, so there is a serious problem of public funds being frittered away.
There is a powerful argument for establishing limits on who is eligible for legal aid, dependent on length of residence here and whether applicants pay taxes here—and surely there should be a public record of what is paid. The British people are fair-minded. We believe that people who live in this country, pay taxes in this country and have a loyalty to this country should have help from this country, regardless of race, colour, creed, religion or sexual orientation, if they need that help. Those who do not need help should not have it; it should be withdrawn from them.


My Bill is directed towards a fairer and more equitable system and a better expenditure of public funds. It is a good Bill, a sound and overdue measure. I hope that it will have widespread support in the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Bercow, Mrs. Angela Browning, Mr. Howard Flight, Mr. Nick Gibb, Mr. Nick Hawkins, Miss Julie Kirkbride, Mr. Peter Luff, Mr. Owen Paterson, Mr. David Prior, Mr. Laurence Robertson, Mr. David Ruffley and Sir Teddy Taylor.

LEGAL AID (REFORM)

Mr. John Bercow accordingly presented a Bill to place restrictions on the granting of legal aid to persons resident outside, or not paying tax in, the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 July, and to be printed [Bill 204].

Opposition Day

13TH ALLOTTED DAY

Hospital Waiting Lists

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I beg to move,
That this House notes with regret the increase in National Health Service hospital waiting lists since May 1997; deplores the failure of Her Majesty's Government to achieve implementation of its promise of an early reduction of such lists; notes that current Government policies in respect of hospital closures and bed reductions are likely to increase the lists further; notes that the proposals to abolish fundholding and reduce flexibility for general practitioners in purchasing health care for their patients will also add to the lists; and urges the Government to reconsider these changes.
We have chosen to debate waiting lists because the Government's broken pledges are of massive concern throughout the country. I was almost encouraged when I switched on my radio this morning and heard that the Secretary of State had announced another 2,000 beds. I thought, "This is wonderful. Every time we have an Opposition day, we can get 2,000 beds out of the Government." We shall consider it a great triumph if, at any time over the next month, the Secretary of State responds to our concerns and announces more money to put into the national health service. We shall be watching for that, and we hope that he will take seriously our request that he should do so.
However, my enthusiasm for the 2,000 beds quickly dwindled when I realised that they were nothing more than the same 2,000 beds that had been announced on 2 June. For one wonderful moment I had thought that we were going to get 4,000 beds, and I am sure that, from the tone of the statements by the Secretary of State, the general public were meant to think that those were extra beds. However, they are not; they are the old beds.
What is more, there is not even any evidence that those 2,000 beds represent a net gain. Are they, for example, to be set against the programme of closures and bed reductions now going on in hospitals throughout the country? This morning, I was at Kent and Canterbury hospital, where a reduction of 400 beds is threatened. Do we assume that those 400 beds will be added back in addition to the 2,000, or are we now talking about a maximum of only 1,600 beds? I would be grateful if the Secretary of State would explain both the minuses and the pluses, and tell us either the net gain or—as I suspect—the net loss.
Before the general election, Labour promised to "save the NHS", and to cut waiting lists by 100,000. They called that their "early pledge". Labour has now been in government for 14 months and we are entitled to examine that early pledge. The Government now say that they will meet the pledge before the next election, so that early pledge has become a "better late than never" pledge.


Let us recall what Labour told us when it was in opposition. Its posters told us that
NHS waiting lists will be shorter";
its mugs—that is, the china sort—told us, "Treat more NHS patients"; and its election manifesto promised to cut health service waiting lists by 100,000. Then, the Secretary of State told us:
This Government only makes promises we intend to keep.
However, the truth is rather different: waiting lists are now 11.5 per cent. higher than when Labour took office and that early pledge has been comprehensively broken. There can be no doubt that those pre-election promises were deliberately designed to make the voters think that waiting lists would be reduced quickly; not only have waiting lists risen, but the Labour Government are deliberately adopting policies that will cause them to rise still further.
The Secretary of State has made various excuses. First, he deliberately put waiting list surgery on hold to cope with a winter crisis that did not, in fact, materialise. The Opposition have been told of cases where temporary nurses were hired at great expense, only for them to have nothing to do, because there was no winter crisis; and of waiting list surgery cancelled, only for the hospitals to have nothing with which to replace it, because there was no winter crisis—a catalogue of waste and inefficiency. I am not suggesting that the Secretary of State could have predicted exactly how mild the winter would be—after all, if he does not know how many hospitals he is responsible for closing, it is most unlikely that he would be in touch with the long-range weather forecasters. However, I am saying that he did not sufficiently think through, or keep sufficiently flexible, his priorities last winter.
Having said that, I give the Secretary of State a little bit of credit, because he accepted that it was his decision and, therefore, his fault. He bungled in his judgment, but at least he had the grace to admit that the record waiting lists were his own creation. He did so in the House, when he said:
As top priority was given to emergencies, waiting lists have grown".
He himself made the direct connection; he then said:
I set that priority, and the health service met that priority".—[Official Report, 18 March 1998; Vol. 308, c. 1290.]
That is more than the Prime Minister is able to do.
During Prime Minister's Question Time on 29 April, the Prime Minister flatly refused to take any responsibility whatsoever for increased waiting lists. I might add that it was not clear from his answer whether or not he held the Secretary of State directly responsible—I suppose that we shall have to wait for the forthcoming Cabinet reshuffle to discover the answer to that question. However, there now appears to be a rather interesting dichotomy, between a bungling Secretary of State for Health who admits that it is all his fault and a Prime Minister who cannot take responsibility for anything.
Despite the Secretary of State's flush of culpability over the winter pressures fiasco, it seems that he is not yet ready to make the ultimate sacrifice. Usually, if someone admits an error of judgment that causes untold misery to 133,000 people, one would not expect that person to say,

as the Secretary of State said in his message to trust chairmen and chief executives, "Okay, I bungled, but you're the ones who may be fired." What makes the Secretary of State's response even more astonishing is that the people he has threatened with the boot are the Labour party's friends, whom he had appointed to trust boards barely four months before.
Let me remind the House of the figures: 79 per cent. of those appointees declaring political activity did so for the Labour party; and 84 per cent. of those appointees who are councillors are Labour councillors. That is what the Secretary of State calls
making trust boards more representative of the people they serve",
but most people would simply call it gerrymandering.
The reason for that preponderance of Labour activists is the result of a rather convenient oversight: the Department of Health wrote only to council leaders, not chief executives, when seeking nominations from local authorities. It appears that some Labour council leaders—inadvertently, it is said—failed to pass on the letter to their colleagues in other parties, so that only Labour activists were nominated in any significant number by that method.
Of course, it must be a little embarrassing for the Secretary of State. Having gone to all that trouble to ensure that trust boards were packed full of Labour supporters, he is now in the rather awkward position of being forced to sack them all as scapegoats for his Government's broken early pledge on waiting lists.
However, trust chairmen will not have to look pensively through their morning post just yet because it seems that the people's pledges are, in fact, portable pledges, to be moved around whenever it is most convenient to the Government. In March, the Secretary of State promised, to the House and in a press release, that waiting lists would be below 1.16 million within a year—by April 1999. Three months later, on 2 June, he said during Health questions that
by this time next year waiting lists will be down to the level that we inherited."—[Official Report, 2 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 159.]
Was that just another bungle by the Secretary of State or has he delayed the pledge by three months? Will he now set the record straight? Will the deadline for the first new clause of his revised waiting list pledge expire by 31 March 1999 or 30 June 1999, or will he extend it again? Which is the correct pledge? I look forward to hearing his answer.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): I know that the right hon. Lady has not been doing her job for very long, but I should have thought that she would have understood by now that under the useless statistical system that we inherited from the previous Government, it takes the national health service about two and a half months to come up with the figures. That is the explanation for the discrepancy.

Miss Widdecombe: It is always somebody else's fault. This time, it is the fault not of the trust chairmen, but of the statisticians—the right hon. Gentleman's own civil servants. He still has not answered the question, but I take it that 30 June 1999 is the date to which we are all now working. If it is, that can go on the record and we can hold him to account. That is no way to run the health service.


The convenient confusion over the Secretary of State's waiting list pledge and the treatment of health service staff is just part of the picture that we are beginning to see of a health service in turmoil. In one breath to tell people that they have done us proud, as the Secretary of State puts it, and in the next to threaten them with the sack when it is the same Secretary of State's decisions that have caused the record waiting lists merely demonstrates that Labour has never been fit to manage anything. That rather sad display of macho management will serve only to demoralise health service workers even further.

Mr. Paul Truswell: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: In a moment.
The Secretary of State appears intent on alienating the most important workers in the health service. First, he alienated the nurses by giving them a staged pay rise. He said that he was embarrassed. So he should be—in July 1996, when the then Government proposed to stage the pay rises of Members of the House, the right hon. Gentleman voted against it. He voted to take his pay rise in one go. He was not embarrassed then, so no wonder he is embarrassed now, as should be the Under-Secretary of State for Health and the Minister for Public Health who also voted against staging then. Let the Secretary of State explain that to the nurses.
The Secretary of State should be embarrassed also that when he is closing hospitals across the country, there is to be a £1 billion hospital in his own back yard.

Mr. Roger Casale: I appreciate that the right hon. Lady is speaking on behalf of the Opposition, but is she aware that the Government have made over £5 million available to West Kent health authority in the area that she represents which will be used to create 132 new beds, which were cut under the previous Government? Will she take the opportunity at least to thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the extra resources that he has made available for her constituency?

Miss Widdecombe: I shall discuss the position in Kent presently, and the hon. Gentleman will not then be smiling so confidently as he is now. The situation in Kent is grievous, and it is entirely the result of decisions taken since May 1997. We shall hear about that in a moment.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Lady discuss what is going on in my health authority? It is getting an extra £1.8 million for these matters. Why is the right hon. Lady complaining, when every Member of the House of Commons represents a seat where millions of pounds has been allocated to shorten waiting lists? What is wrong with that? Labour is delivering.

Miss Widdecombe: First, that money must be allocated because the Government's policies are not working and waiting lists are lengthening. Secondly, when we discuss those millions, I shall show the hon. Gentleman that the money is not worth as much as he supposes.
I return to the demoralisation in the health service. The sources of increased pressure on waiting lists are not only the Secretary of State's bungled attempt at

"tough management", as he calls it, but the pathetic financial settlement that the Government have seen fit to offer the health service. "Pathetic" is not my word; it is the word used by Dr. Sandy Macara, chairman of the British Medical Association—a group that has rarely criticised the Labour party in the past 19 years, and now says that its financial settlement is pathetic.
The BMA says that because, despite all the talk of extra money for the health service, we had an increase of 3.1 per cent. in real terms per annum, whereas the average increase under the present Government has been only 2 per cent. Of course they have made some extra sums available, but let us see what we have to remove from those extra sums. Perhaps the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will get out his calculator.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have it here.

Miss Widdecombe: We can remove higher-than-expected inflation. That is another broken pledge; Labour said that it would keep inflation low. We can remove health service inflation. We can remove the abolition of private medical insurance tax relief, deficit reduction, the phased pay award and other black holes in Labour's spending campaign, which render the additional money that they keep talking about only a fraction of its current worth. For example, if one removes the factors that I have suggested, the £417 million announced in the Budget becomes a paltry £32 million.
The effect that underfunding has had on the health service is now visible; what will be the cost to waiting lists of another year of short change? If underfunding and winter pressures were the only factors, the waiting lists situation might not look so desperate, but that is only half the story. The entire structure of Labour's health service reforms and its hospital closures programme will have an equally devastating effect on the future of the health service.
Labour's White Paper is a blueprint for increasing the people's waiting lists. The bureaucracy proposed in the White Paper will add substantially to health service running costs. The Government claim that they can save £1 billion from bureaucracy but, without saving anything, they have already added another £150 million a year from the cost of administering the primary care groups alone. Bureaucracy to co-ordinate health authorities and local authorities will be necessary within the structure of their reforms, but they have not accounted for any cost whatever. NICE, the national institute for clinical effectiveness, and CHIMP, the commission for health improvement—to name just two of their inventions
—will also cost extra money, with no resultant administrative savings. The whole White Paper appears to be a return to the command-and-control structure for the health service, with all the associated running costs. There will be a raft of new quangos, none of which will keep the waiting list pledge afloat.
The Government have not, as they frequently claim, abolished the internal market. The purchaser-provider split remains. They have only clogged up its workings with unnecessary controls and bureaucratic mechanisms, requiring constant consultation before any decision is taken. That will reduce efficiency and lead to money being diverted from reducing waiting lists to unnecessary administration.


There is reduced freedom for general practitioners because primary care groups, rather than fundholders, will choose between trusts, and that will reduce the flexibility of individual GPs to choose shorter waiting lists for their patients. The reduced efficiency caused—

Mr. Truswell: rose—

Mr. Ian Bruce: Go on, read from your briefing.

Mr. Truswell: No, it is entirely of my own making; I have no briefing from anyone else.
I speak as a former member of a family health services authority, and that authority had some Tory nominees on it, none of whom subscribed to the concept of GP fundholders. Does the right hon. Lady think it was right that so much money accumulated in GP fundholder budgets while health authorities were running deficits? That money could have been used to treat patients and reduce waiting lists. Does she accept that while I was a member of a family health services authority, our auditors brought to our attention a number of cases where they thought that fundholders were not using the money efficiently, such as for the purchase of lavish oak furniture? Does she not think that those cases should have been dealt with, and that the money should have been spent on reducing waiting lists?

Miss Widdecombe: Fundholding increased flexibility and allowed doctors to choose what was best for their patients. Fundholding resulted in a vastly improved service, to such an extent that, although the early demand was cautious, there was later a huge demand for fundholding. I would have expanded fundholding, not got rid of it.
Even more disturbing than what I have described so far is the programme of hospital cuts and closures by stealth. Beds, wards and even whole hospitals are being shut down as Labour's lack of investment in our health service bites.

Mr. Nigel Beard: My constituency was marked by years of hospital closure on the promise of a new hospital corning, which was intended to be built under the private finance initiative. However, dither and delay prevented it from coming, and confidence in the health service lapsed. My right hon. Friend has redeemed the promise and we are to have a new Queen Elizabeth hospital in the area.

Miss Widdecombe: I am delighted to hear about the Secretary of State's U-turn in accepting the PFI, but in the month that the election was declared—in March last year—Labour said, "We have no plans to close hospitals." Labour deceived the electorate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] I shall give some examples.
In Oxfordshire, the outlook is especially bleak. Three community hospitals face the axe. One of those, Burford community hospital, contains a specialist Alzheimer's rehabilitation project. The unit is not replicable in the medium term, so if it goes, no substitute service will be provided. It will close when Burford shuts, despite being

a centre of academic excellence for research into Alzheimer's. Patients using Burford will face a 40-mile round trip to out-patient facilities in Oxford.
The closure of the hospital will mean that elderly patients using Burford as a halfway stop when returning home from hospital stays will be forced to block beds for other patients waiting for treatment. I have heard that story from many community hospitals. One of their most important functions is to relieve acute beds by taking people who are no longer in need of acute beds, but who are not yet ready to return home, and rehabilitating and caring for them in the interim. If those hospitals close, that function will go with them. That can only result in longer waiting lists, as beds are blocked.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the exact situation that she describes applies in Dorset? We have a massive bed-blocking problem, which has got much worse over the past year. [Laughter.]

Miss Widdecombe: Indeed. Dorset, Oxfordshire, Warminster and Wallingford are merely examples. We shall hear far more during the debate, but we should note that the response to my hon. Friend's intervention was laughter on the Labour Benches. I do not think that that laughter will be shared by the patients who fear that their hospital will be closed, or in my hon. Friend's constituency or throughout the country when people realise how deceived they were by the Government. The Labour Government said that there would be shorter waiting lists, but lists have risen to record levels. The Government said that there would be no closures, but they are now closing right, left and centre.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Will the right hon. Lady tell the House how much more money she wants spent on the health service?

Miss Widdecombe: We did not plan to close those hospitals, so we would have spent the money to keep them open. We spent 3.1 per cent. more every year, but the Government have spent 2 per cent. more. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Julian Brazier: The point is that hospital reorganisation can be very expensive. The proposed rundown of Kent and Canterbury hospital in my constituency, which my right hon. Friend visited this morning, is a good example. The community health council has pointed out that Kent health authority's figures for the likely costs of the closure are wholly unaudited, unsupported and grossly understated.

Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I intended to make those very points when I turned to Kent, as there seems to be a misapprehension that all of Kent is swimming in new Government money.
As my hon. Friend said, I visited Kent and Canterbury hospital this morning. It is an acute —not a community—hospital with an award-winning cancer unit. Local people cannot believe that there is any question of that hospital being axed, with all the in-patient facilities scrapped. People will face a 100-mile round trip for radiotherapy if the oncology unit is scrapped, for example. I must admit that I am interested in that myself as the nearest oncology


centre is Maidstone. If the oncology unit at Kent and Canterbury hospital is closed—I accept that it is only a proposal at present—I want to know what extra resources will be made available to Maidstone to enable it to cope with the people who will be forced to make that long round trip.
People feel let down and disillusioned. The 465 beds at the Kent and Canterbury are threatened with a reduction to 65. How does that square with anything that Labour said before the last election? People never believed that Labour would close their hospitals; they never believed that Labour would preside over record waiting lists. They were led to believe that there would be increased funding, reduced waiting lists and hospitals kept open. The Government have failed in each and every one of those areas—and they have failed dismally.
Let the Secretary of State now make several things clear and we shall listen very carefully —I shall not be ambitious and ask him to apologise. The Secretary of State needs to tell us if and when he will meet his pre-election pledge on waiting lists. He needs to tell us how much more than his original estimate of £100 million it will cost to meet that pledge, however late it may be. He needs to tell us—he has been asked this many times during Health questions, but has dodged the issue every time—whether he will guarantee that no other areas of our health service will suffer as a result of the Government's panic reaction to tackling the waiting list problem that they have created.
If the Government eventually reduce waiting lists at the expense of other investment in our health care system, they will not have delivered on their pledge. To cut back or to marginalise other core areas of health service activity would be to cheat all hospital users. The Government have fudged and bungled their early pledge: it has been broken and twisted beyond repair. There will come a point when the Secretary of State must realise that he cannot turn around his supertanker fast enough and that he is heading on to the rocks of Labour' s pre-election early pledge. When he reaches that point, I suggest that he considers whether he should follow the example of all decent captains and go down with his ship.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I must apologise, as my voice is going—I should obviously consult our wonderful national health service. Does my right hon. Friend realise that both the Department of Health and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions have had to accept that money has been cut from social services budgets in places such as Dorset? The process of unblocking beds by putting people into community care is falling down completely in Dorset —it is not just a matter of its maintaining previous levels. The Secretary of State must tell us what he is doing to ensure that the other Departments' budgets are not being cut in that way.

Miss Widdecombe: Indeed. My hon. Friend gives a great deal of flavour to my point, which is that we are already receiving intelligence from various parts of the health service, from chairmen and chief executives, who are telling us—

Mr. Eric Martlew: Labour chairmen.

Miss Widdecombe: If they are Labour chairmen, Labour Members should listen carefully to what they are

telling us because it is not very helpful. They are telling us that there is such a frantic demand for statistics coming from the Government, and so much fear and panic over trying to make it look as if the Government can keep their waiting list pledge, that staff are being prevented from getting on with the job in hand. That information is coming not from politicians, but from those who are responsible for running the health service, and who are faced with the sack by the Secretary of State if they do not deliver.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. Lady knows that I am sympathetic to her attack on the Government for postponing their early pledge on waiting lists—if not looking as if they are in great difficulty in delivering it. However, the implication of the right hon. Lady's attack is that her party would put in the money to ensure that waiting lists were reduced. If that is now her party's policy, will she explain why, last Thursday, the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer accused the Chancellor, when he announced more money for the public services, of going soft on public spending?

Miss Widdecombe: The Labour party made twin promises, as the hon. Gentleman will know.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Answer the question.

Miss Widdecombe: I am answering it. The first promise was, "We will stick to the previous Government's spending plans." The second promise was, "We will reduce waiting lists." The Labour party made twin promises at the same time. That being so, the Government cannot now blame keeping one promise for breaking the other.
How does the Secretary of State respond to the motion? He responds with exactly the same manipulation of fact—I put in no higher than that.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: No. I shall make some progress and I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once. It was not a particularly intelligent intervention last time, and I do not suppose that he has learnt anything in the short time between because he has not been listening. That being so, I am going on.
How did the Secretary of State react to the motion? He did so by making the statement that appears in the amendment, which is that the House
notes that by March 1998 no-one in England was waiting over 18 months for treatment, meaning that this Government has already achieved what the Conservative Government never achieved".
I say that again. The amendment states that
no-one in England was waiting over 18 months for treatment".
Naturally we wondered what surveys had been done to establish this, and we asked. We were told that it was established through management intelligence. That is, I think, a ring-round.


There is at least one case of a schoolboy who has been waiting not 18 months, but 19 months for a simple throat operation. His mother wrote:
He can't sleep at night because his throat hurts and he can't eat properly. I know that he has got to wait his turn"—
so this is a reasonable parent—
but it has been 19 months and that is too long for a little boy. Two months ago I wrote to St. Thomas's because I hadn't heard anything since I took him to the doctor's in 1996. They came back saying that they had looked into my complaint and they gave him an appointment to have his tonsils out on 10 June. On 28 May I got a letter saying that he could not go in because there was an emergency case coming in, but how did they know that 12 days in advance?
That is the situation, so the statement to which I have referred is untrue and I expect the Secretary of State to withdraw it.

Mr. Graham Brady: Is my right hon. Friend further aware that when waiting lists in Salford and Trafford, in my health authority area, have risen by about 5 per cent. in only four months, there is the further scandal of operations being moved? People are not being moved through the system and then having operations, but being removed from waiting lists and going on to deferred lists, which do not count in the official figures. That is happening, but we are still seeing waiting lists increasing dramatically.

Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is right, but I also want to ask the Secretary of State another simple question. The first was, will he acknowledge that the statement in his amendment is wrong, which means that he cannot press the amendment because it would mislead the House?

Mr. Dobson: No, I will not.

Miss Widdecombe: The Secretary of State is saying that that child has not waited 19 months. I shall read that into the record, and I am sure that the mother of that child will want to take it up. He is saying that she is not telling the truth, but he should be saying that the amendment is wrong and should be withdrawn, because to press it would be to mislead the House, which I am sure he would not want to do.
Let me ask the Secretary of State another simple question. He talks about 18-month waiting lists. That, of course, is for treatment. There is an easy way to make sure that no one waits more than 18 months for treatment, which is to make sure that they wait rather a long time for a consultation. Will he please publish lists of how long people have been waiting for consultations, and make them comparative, so that we can see the true state of affairs?

Mr. David Lock: I of course accept that the right hon. Lady has managed to identify one person who has been waiting more than 18 months, but does she accept that, under the Conservative Government, a time was reached when 220,000 people had been waiting more than 18 months, and 92,000 people had been waiting more than two years? Would she apologise to those people, whom she let down year after year?

Miss Widdecombe: The Conservative Government cut the number waiting for more than a year from 200,000 to 15,000. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would applaud that.
In considering this rather silly amendment, which contains an inaccuracy and which the Secretary of State, in all decency, should not press on the House, we should make a final survey of what we inherited, what they inherited and where we are now. In the last full year of the previous Labour Government, there was a 2.7 per cent. cut in the NHS. Under us, there were consistent rises, year on year. During our previous period in government, our spending rose 74 per cent. The Labour Government's capital investment fell; ours rose, by 66 per cent. Under us, pay for doctors and dentists went up 34.5 per cent.; under them, it went down 31 per cent. Under us, nurses' pay went up 67 per cent.; under them, it went down 3 per cent. Our lists of people waiting more than a year went down by 92 per cent.; theirs went up by 26 per cent. [Interruption.] I am wrong. I am sorry, but I thought that one of my hon. Friends wanted to intervene. I always value contributions from my hon. Friends, so I was prepared to give one of them a chance to speak.
Where are we, at the end of just over a year of the Labour Government being in power? They plan to reduce flexibility for doctors, they have closed hospitals and reduced spending year on year, and they put such an emphasis on statistics that we are being told that basic care is suffering. That can all be summed up easily: they spend less, they close more, they make people wait longer.

Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I crave your advice on something that is going on in the House—behind you, I am afraid, because of the people who are involved. The normal situation is that people in the Box send notes to Ministers. Those notes are being caught up by the parliamentary private secretaries and sent round to other people.

Madam Speaker: My only concern is that either a Minister or a PPS approaches the Box.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
notes with pleasure the £2 billion increase in National Health Service spending since 1st May 1997; welcomes the allocation of £500 million to cut waiting lists by the end of this Parliament to 100,000 below the record levels inherited from the last Conservative Government; notes that as a result of record increases in waiting list surgery the National Health Service will be opening around 2,000 extra beds and keeping open around a further 1,000 in marked contrast to the cuts under the last Government; notes that by March 1998 no-one in England was waiting over 18 months for treatment, meaning that this Government has already achieved what the Conservative Government never achieved; and further welcomes the ending of two-tier care by the introduction of primary care groups which puts doctors and nurses in the driving seat of modernisation.".
The Tory attack on our handling of the national health service seems to me to be an unholy combination of barefaced cheek and amnesia.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Dobson: No, I am not giving way for the time being. Many Back-Bench Members wish to speak. The shadow Secretary of State went on for a long time, and so that other people can contribute to the debate, I do not propose to take a large number of interventions.


The motion tabled by the Leader of the Opposition begins by regretting the increase in waiting lists since May 1997. We welcome the Tories' new interest in waiting lists. I wonder why they regret only the increase since May 1997. They have expressed no views on the massive increases in waiting lists that took place before 1997. I have checked the records. Such has been the massive concern of the parliamentary Tory party about waiting lists that, during the previous Parliament, when more than 230,000 questions were tabled and answered, Conservative Members asked just 32 questions about waiting lists, which is six a year.

Miss Widdecombe: The reason for the concentration of interest on waiting lists as opposed to waiting times or capital spending is that Labour made the promise, and the Government are being held to account. The interest in waiting lists stems from Labour's rash promise.

Mr. Dobson: The Opposition spokeswoman has taken up more time in my speech than I have, and she has already had 40 minutes of her own.
Under the Tories, there was a relentless increase in hospital waiting lists. During the 1990s, after the reforms of the national health service of which the Tories were so proud, the figure exceeded 1 million. They seem to have forgotten that, when we took over in May last year we inherited from them record national health service waiting lists, which were rising faster than at any time in the history of the service. They have either forgotten that, or they are proud of their useless record when they were responsible for the health service.
Not only do we regret the rise in the waiting lists both before and after May last year, but we intend to do something about it. That is what we promised at the general election. It is worth remembering that, at that election, the Tories proposed to do nothing more about waiting lists: they were apparently satisfied with things as they were.

Mr. Heald: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not give way.
The people of this country want waiting lists to come down. For them, the worst aspect of the health service is the waiting: waiting for an ambulance, waiting in accident and emergency, waiting for an out-patient appointment, waiting to go into hospital, and, for God's sake, once they are in hospital, sometimes having to wait to get out again. We recognised that concern, and we promised to get waiting lists down. The Tory party was apparently quite satisfied with the situation that then prevailed.
It will not be easy to get the waiting lists down: no one ever suggested that it would be. As I said this time last year, they are like a supertanker: it will take time to slow them down, longer to stop them rising, and even longer to turn them around.

Mr. Alan Duncan: What was "early" about the Secretary of State's pledge?

Mr. Dobson: It was certainly an early pledge, and we are doing something about it. If we are to improve the health service, we must take account of the state it was in when we inherited it. It was in a very bad state. It was

stretched almost to breaking point. Staff were run off their feet, and there was a lack of resources. The Tory Government used to pride themselves on the way in which they looked after public money. Sixty of the 100 health authorities–60 per cent.—were in debt.
A massive increase in the number of emergency cases had been taking place for some time. When we took office, we asked the officials what research had been done into the reasons for that increase, and what had been done to tackle it. Answer came there none. The idle, useless lot who had preceded us had not examined the problem at all; we have had to start doing so.
Last summer, I made it clear that, in the coming winter—last winter—the national health service should give priority to dealing with emergencies. We realised that, given the resources then available to the NHS, we could not ask it both to bring waiting lists down and to deal with emergencies. I took responsibility for that from the day on which I said it, and I continue to accept personal responsibility. I am not ashamed to do so. I said that emergencies should come first. I took substantial steps to promote joint working throughout the NHS and with social services all over the country, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer provided an additional £300 million to cope with emergencies during the winter.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Dobson: I will in a moment.
That made 700 extra beds available during the winter to help the hard-pressed people in the health service to cope with emergencies. They achieved a brilliant success. I know that the weather was mild last winter, and that there was no flu epidemic; but last winter the NHS dealt with more emergencies than ever before, and there were none of the scandalous lists of people waiting on trolleys and mattresses in corridors that had characterised nearly every winter in the 1990s. That is immensely to the credit of those working in the NHS and local social services. It contributed to the rise in waiting lists, as I had said it would at the start, but I believe that the right priority was given.
Until recently, I had not heard one person object to that decision. Then the last shadow Secretary of State for Health said that it had been made to save my face. I possess my face, and I would not want to sacrifice anyone for the sake of my face. Nothing was done for the sake of my face.
Now the new shadow Secretary of State says that our action was a failed public relations exercise. Was what was done in the West Kent health authority area, part of which the right hon. Lady represents, a public relations exercise? Was it a public relations exercise to put £117,000 into flu vaccinations to protect the most exposed groups? Was it a public relations exercise to put an extra £1 million into 132 additional nursing and residential home placements and home care?

Mr. Brazier: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Dobson: No.
Was it a public relations exercise to spend £50,000 on extending district nurse cover in the right hon. Lady's area, to spend £200,000 on additional beds at Mid-Kent


hospital, or to spend £150,000 on a minimum care ward and discharge lounge at Kent and Sussex Weald? Apparently so.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Dobson: I will in a moment.
Recently, at the invitation of the senior representative of the consultants in the British Medical Association, I visited Halton general hospital. That representative was proud to introduce me to a team of respiratory care nurses who had spent the winter using some of the money to visit old people and other people with chest complaints, and deal with them at home. Being in hospital would have put them in danger, owing to the nature of hospitals. That was not a public relations exercise; it was a brilliant effort on the part of people in the NHS, which was appreciated by everyone—except, apparently, the new shadow Secretary of State for Health, who would rather make cheap political points.

Mr. Brazier: rose—

Mr. Heald: rose—

Mr. Matthew Taylor: rose—

Mr. Dobson: I will give way to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. Taylor: The Secretary of State has rightly referred to the brilliant effort by staff in the NHS. He is aware, of course, of the situation in Cornwall, where four hospitals and a maternity unit face closure. He has to accept that it is now his responsibility to say yes or no to the health authority proposal. He will understand that there is much concern among the staff themselves in those hospitals and the maternity unit about their future, and there has been substantial delay in making a decision. Can he give any indication as to whether there is any chance of an early decision, one way or the other, which will at least relieve the burden that they are under? I hope that the decision will be to keep the hospitals and maternity unit open.

Mr. Dobson: I am not supposed to adjudicate on individual decisions on the Floor of the House, because I could be challenged, whether my decision went one way or the other, and I have a quasi-judicial role in this matter. All I can say about the Cornwall situation is this: it is nothing to do with money. The chief executive of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority has said that, even if he had the money, he would close those hospitals.
I am dubious about that idea, as the hon. Gentleman and other Cornwall Members know, and I am looking at the objections to those closures extremely seriously. It is all right people saying, "Make up your mind quickly." If I had made up my mind a lot sooner, they might have got the wrong answer. If they hang on a bit, they might even get the right one.

Mr. Heald: In East and North Hertfordshire health authority, the number of people on the waiting list has gone

up by a third in the past year, so will the Secretary of State apologise to the 4,000 extra people on the waiting list, and answer the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) asked: what about Lee Bosley, who has been waiting for 19 months? How can the Secretary of State possibly say that people are not waiting for 18 months when here is someone who has been waiting for 19?

Mr. Dobson: I do not know the details of the case that has been raised across the Dispatch Box, but the statements that I have made are based on information that has been supplied through the normal statistical arrangements in the Department of Health. Indeed, I have so insisted on it getting things right that one of the reasons for the increase in waiting lists is that it has had to look around, and has found some people who, strangely, disappeared from the waiting list last year. They are now back on because I want the figures to be accurate. If they are not, I will follow that up and ensure that something is done about it.

Mr. Duncan: So will the Secretary of State withdraw the amendment?

Mr. Dobson: No, I certainly will not withdraw the amendment because, frankly, I would not take the word of the people sitting on the Conservative Front Bench if they were the last people on earth. The child's mother may be right, and I am prepared to find out what has been going on, but I am not prepared to accept any accusations that are hurled at me by people on the Conservative Front Bench. If they had really been interested in the interests of the child, they could have got in touch with my Department—and I would have sorted the matter out in advance—rather than trying to make cheap points at the Dispatch Box.
We are entering just our second year of government and, with the extra money, I am convinced that we can and will tackle waiting lists. In his first Budget, the Chancellor found for this year for the NHS £1.2 billion over and above what the Tory Government had intended. In his second Budget, which was announced fairly recently, he found an extra £500 million, specifically to tackle waiting lists. That takes to £2 billion the total extra funds that we have put into the NHS since we came to power.
Of the £500 million of waiting list money, £417 million extra will go to England—rightly, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will get their share—to start getting waiting lists down. That is how it will be used. Today, I have published —anyone who reads it will be able to challenge the figures—a preliminary survey of what is happening with that money, which shows that more beds are being provided, that more wards are being opened, that more staff are being taken on, that there is more operating theatre time, and that there are more weekend and evening surgeries.
Let us look at what is happening with beds. The Opposition motion accuses us of reducing the number of beds, but, as a result of the availability of that £417 million—or, indeed, only part of it—this year 2,000 extra beds will be made available to the NHS, which would not otherwise be available. Moreover, 1,100 beds which were planned to be closed will not be closed. Therefore, this year, 3,000 extra beds—the equivalent of six new district general hospitals—will be in use to help


bring down waiting lists. That action is being taken at a time when we are getting on with building another six district general hospitals, including the one in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew).

Several hon: Members rose—

Mr. David Faber: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: I shall not give way for the moment.
Although the new Opposition health team have not been in the job very long, they should know that, between 1979 and 1997, the Tory Government—of whom they seem to be so proud —closed 43,000 acute beds in the national health service. This is our second year in government, and 3,000 extra beds will be available. Compare that with the 43,000 fewer beds that were available under the Tories. What a contrast!

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Duncan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: I shall not. I shall mention the hon. Gentleman, after which he can intervene.
This morning, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan)—who keeps leaping to the Dispatch Box—said on radio that he wanted to see the lists of those beds. We have published the lists. However, to save him looking them up, I tell him that, because of the Government's action, there will be 30 extra acute beds in Leicestershire, which will serve his constituency. In west Kent—which includes the constituency represented by the shadow Secretary of State for Health–125 extra beds will be available. I know that the right hon. Lady is in favour of old-fashioned courtesies—so I am just leaning forward to hear the words, "Thank you." She should be grateful that she is getting that extra money.
I shall give some other examples.

Miss Widdecombe: rose—

Mr. Dobson: Let me finish the list.
There will be 450 extra beds in London; 60 in Birmingham; 75 in Leeds; 73 in Berkshire; 67 in Liverpool; 36 in east Norfolk; 89 in Suffolk; 60 in Bradford; 115 in Derbyshire—because we are as interested in rural areas as in big cities—and 48 in Durham. Extra staff will be taken on. Moreover, £65 million will go into primary mental health care and community services—all of which can make a contribution by looking after people at home, so that they do not place a demand on hospital beds.
The Government's action has been welcomed across the country—except by the Tories. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald said that people are moaning about the Government's action. However, I should tell her that, in May, Ruth Carnall, chief executive of the West Kent health authority, told the Gravesend Reporter:
We welcome this money, particularly since we understand"—
she is quite right—
that it is not just a one-off but part of an intention nationally to enable health authorities to maintain lower lists.

The Government have had such welcomes from the people who actually have to do the work across the country.
The Tory motion, out of date as it is—as the Tories usually are—mentions bed reductions. However, as I said, there will be 3,000 extra beds.

Miss Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman has quite consistently talked about extra beds. I therefore ask him again the question that I asked him earlier: will those extra beds be over and above complete restoration of all the beds that are now being cut and all the hospitals that are now being closed? Will the extra beds in Kent, for example, mean that we will not lose 400 beds at Kent and Canterbury? If we lose 400 beds at Kent and Canterbury, 63 extra beds somewhere else in Kent will be of minimal use.

Mr. Dobson: The 63 extra beds in Kent will be provided this year. Consultation is under way in Kent about proposals made by the East Kent health authority that involve changes and—if the authority has its way—bed reductions at the Kent and Canterbury hospital. That, if it is approved, may take place in future years. I am talking about this year. There is not going to be any reduction in beds in Canterbury this year.
In addition, the proposition for the changes in Kent to which the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald objects comes from the members of the East Kent health authority, every single one of whom was appointed by a Tory Secretary of State, not by me. As I do not like to mislead the House, I must point out that I reappointed the woman who chairs that health authority because it seemed wrong to change horses in mid-stream. I believe that I have the support of the Tory Member for Thanet—the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale— in so doing.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Dobson: I give way to the former Secretary of State for Health.

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: The Secretary of State can clear up very simply the question whether there is to be a net increase in bed space. Will he give the House a clear undertaking that the published figures for this year will show that 3,000 more acute beds were available in the national health service than were available in the health service last year? Are the acute beds in the health service going to increase by 3,000? Is that the commitment that he is giving the House?

Mr. Dobson: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, under the present statistical arrangements in the Department of Health, over which he presided, we shall not get those figures until 1999. We are talking about practicalities, not crackpot statistics as provided by the Tories. The practicalities are that the hard-working staff in the NHS will this year have access to 3,000 more beds in which to treat patients. That is clearly a step forward.
The Tory motion also criticises our proposals for improving primary care and giving greater power and influence to general practitioners, community nurses and midwives. We are doing that because everyone recognises


that the Tory reorganisation of the NHS was wrong. The Tories introduced a competitive internal market which produced a two-tier system. It set doctor against doctor and hospital against hospital, and it cost a fortune in bureaucracy. If anyone doubts the huge amount of waste in the bureaucracy, I shall give one simple example.
When we took office, we were faced with having to agree, or otherwise, what was called the eighth wave of fundholding. We decided not to go ahead with it. The previous Government had earmarked £20 million for last year just to pay for the bureaucracy involved in the eighth wave of fundholding. I stopped it. That released £20 million, £10 million of which was spent on improved breast cancer services across the country, including £194,000 in the health authority which serves the shadow Secretary of State and £183,000 in that which serves the shadow Minister of State.
We know from what she has said in the past that the shadow Secretary of State believes that the Tory reforms are now really delivering results, but the main result they delivered was untold harm. Talking to people in the NHS, I find it very difficult to find anyone who will admit to supporting the old system. Admittedly, the majority of people in the health service never did support it, but even some of its former advocates have publicly recanted. Even more disturbing is the fact that the odd one, well known for advocating the internal market years ago, has sidled up to me to whisper that he was a secret member of the resistance all along. Such people are not very convincing, but I give them the benefit of the doubt.
Our proposals will put doctors, nurses and midwives back in the driving seat, not only in primary care but right across the national health service. That is bad news for management consultants, but good news for the rest of us. Management consultants have done untold damage to the NHS.
GPs are rightly concerned about the future of general practice. It is natural that they should be, as it is their careers, their premises, their staff and their patients who are involved. They have raised practical concerns, and there have been talks between the British Medical Association and officials in my Department, and, more recently, between representatives of the BMA and the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), whom I should like to thank for the amazing amount of hard work that he has put into those talks. I hope and expect that the talks will achieve a successful outcome.
We share the desire of the professions—not just the medical profession but the nursing profession—that they should have a bigger say, and the desire to raise standards. We want to carry the professions with us.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although GPs raised with him issues such as recruitment to the service on his extremely successful visit to Over Wyre medical centre in my constituency yesterday, there was a real sense of optimism and a determination to provide services close to the

patient, or customer, in rural areas? GPs want to provide services at the local, GP practice level, rather than having to rely on acute hospital trusts and becoming involved in waiting lists.

Mr. Dobson: I confirm that that was the reception I received. We want the health service to provide treatment much closer to home. Many of the procedures, treatments and operations which once had to be carried out in district general hospitals will, with new technology, be able to be delivered on GP premises, much closer to people's homes. That is one of the things that we are trying to develop.
I greatly welcome the strong support of the medical, nursing and midwifery professions for what we are trying to do to improve quality. I do not think that there has ever been a time in the history of medicine in this country when the medical profession has been so committed to trying to improve quality and standards.
Until now, there has been no national health service machinery setting clinical standards, spreading good medical practice or checking on standards of performance. We are putting that machinery in place, with the overt support of the professions. Like them, we are determined that there will be no more Bristols, no more Kent and Canterbury cervical screening scandals, and no more Devon and Exeter breast screening scandals. We are going to put in place machinery to set standards, and then ensure that they are met. [Interruption.] If we are to hear booing from the Opposition about standards, I have to say that machinery should have been in place to pick up what was going wrong in Kent and Canterbury and in Devon and Exeter, but there was not.
When I asked the Tory-appointed chair of the South Thames health region to conduct an inquiry into the scandal in Kent and Canterbury, which had not been cleared up by the previous Government, who had allowed the people who had got it wrong to produce a report and then keep it private, he said—the previous Government were responsible for some of this—
that the reasons for failure were poor and confused management; there had been repeated warnings of understaffing, poor training and low morale which had gone unheeded for many years. He said that there was a lack of a clear line of accountability on both management and quality assurance for the national programme. He went on:
I have been forcibly struck by the different ways in which the introduction of the internal market … exacerbated an already inherently weak situation … Many of the decisions which had an adverse effect on the cytology department were made … because of the perceived need to be free standing and competitive in the newly created market.
That is why we are opposed to the internal market in the NHS.

Dr. Evan Harris: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Dobson: Not at the moment.
Unlike our Tory predecessors, we are doing something about quality, and about our waiting list commitment. We admit that it will be hard to achieve. In the last year that the Tories were in power, the increase in treatment of people on the waiting list was just 1.2 per cent. To achieve what we want this year will require an increase


of 10 per cent. It is a huge increase, but, on the basis of the statistics supplied to me, there are no 18-month waiters—I shall look into that. There are fewer 12-month waiters than in the past two years, and there has been the biggest fall in cancelled operations since figures were first collected.
All that depends on the people working in the health service, and on more money. We have found an extra £2 billion for the health service since we came to power—that is £2 billion more than the Tories intended to spend, and £1 billion more than the Liberal Democrats promised to spend. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out the Government's disciplined framework for public spending and investment. I am confident that, when the outcome of the comprehensive spending review is revealed, there will be more money available to the national health service.
The interesting question about the comprehensive spending review is not for us, but for the Tories. What will they say? They have been calling for more money for the national health service today, but last week the shadow Chancellor was attacking my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for squandering public money. We think that more money should go to the health service. Do the Tories agree? If so, do they have the agreement of the shadow Chancellor to say so?
We have no doubt that the national health service was under-resourced under the Tories, and needs more resources. Under this Labour Government, it will get more resources, not just to get waiting lists down, but to raise standards and give the hard-working staff the quality of buildings, plant, equipment and pharmaceutical products that match their excellence and commitment, putting them in a position to respond to the changing needs of the people of our country. With Labour—the party that founded it—the national health service will be renewed. It will be fit for the 21st century, and it will not be in the hands of the Tory party.

Mr. Faber: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that Madam Speaker values the rights of Back Benchers. I have heard her speak about the speed with which Ministers should reply to letters, and she has said that, whenever possible, Ministers should offer the courtesy of hosting delegations from Back-Bench Members of whatever party who want to discuss issues. This morning, I visited Warminster hospital in my constituency, where the mental health ward is due to be closed by the local health authority because of the Government's policies—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I have heard enough to realise that that is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Faber: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have ruled that there is no point of order, so the hon. Gentleman cannot raise anything further to it.

Mrs. Marion Roe: I am grateful to you for calling me early in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am required to chair a Select Committee in 15 minutes.
I apologise to you and to the House that my parliamentary duties will prevent me from remaining in the Chamber for the following speaker and for the winding-up speeches.
It is a great sadness that the 50th anniversary celebrations of the NHS are being marred by Labour's broken promises. At the general election, the public were misled into believing that NHS services would improve, not deteriorate. The reality is that acute hospitals and community hospitals are being closed, waiting lists are growing and waiting times are becoming ever longer. If the Labour party had matched the Conservative record on health service funding, the NHS would have £750 million more for next year than the Chancellor of the Exchequer has so far given it. I hope that the pressure from the Conservatives will persuade him to find additional funding.
In a recent Gallup poll on the two most urgent problems facing the country, 48 per cent. of respondents cited health, hospitals and medical services. No wonder the Prime Minister has been forced to postpone the publication of his first annual report on the Government's performance because of the growing criticism of Labour's failure to meet its key election pledges. The decision to postpone the launch of the report earlier this month has come as Ministers face embarrassment over a spate of official figures showing that the Government are encountering difficulty in achieving many of their five early pledges. The Secretary of State for Health has admitted to being embarrassed about waiting lists reaching 1.3 million—an increase of 133,300 since Labour came to power 14 months ago. He seems to be in a state of permanent blush.
Last February, I asked the Prime Minister whether he was aware that patients attending the Queen Elizabeth II hospital in Welwyn Garden City were waiting a maximum of 12 months for elective surgery in May 1997, but that nine months later they had to wait 18 months. The waiting lists have grown dramatically in every specialty. Needless to say, I did not receive a satisfactory reply from the Prime Minister.
The Labour party cannot claim naivety over the promises that it made at the general election. It must have been a calculated confidence trick on the British people. Those in the Labour leadership assessed how they could persuade electors to vote for them, produced the appropriate propaganda, inflicted it on the unsuspecting electors and are now pretending to us all that they really believed it.

Mrs. Louise Ellman: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Roe: I cannot give way, because I have to chair a meeting in 10 minutes. I apologise, but I am afraid that 1 am under pressure of time.
Anybody who knows anything about health realises that Labour's health policies were never going to reduce waiting lists by 100,000 in the early years of its term of office. The Secretary of State for Health is using crisis money in a desperate attempt to achieve a short-term solution instead of identifying the fundamental problems of demand and need. His strategy will reward poor performance by throwing money at trusts with longer waiting lists. It will distort practice, undermine the


development of a co-ordinated strategy and bail out the inefficient practitioner who does not make best use of his facilities.
The Government have fallen into a trap. They are trying to reduce waiting lists by treating more patients through a short-term burst of activity. History shows that to be a fundamentally flawed strategy. Waiting lists have risen inexorably since 1948. Despite an increase of more than 800,000 in the number of patients treated annually, waiting lists lengthened by 100,000 between 1991 and 1995 because more than 1 million extra people were referred to the waiting lists.
Since the election of the Labour Government, on their spurious health pledges, the rate of increase has accelerated because they have failed to recognise the underlying pressures: increased chronic illness in all age groups; greater understanding of the options available; greater expectation of medicine; increasing demands on the service; new technology; and new therapy. Evidence shows that there is an equilibrium between waiting lists and activity. Increases in activity will be met by increases in referrals, which puts further pressure on the waiting lists. The Secretary of State's shallow attempts to bail out media pledges cannot succeed. Like King Canute, he will discover that the tide of demand will inundate him.
Of course, money for waiting lists will result in extra people being treated. They will benefit and their quality of life will improve, but that political measure will do nothing for genuine clinical need. Managers under pressure to deliver the Government's requirements will target the simple and quick procedures. Cataracts, varicose veins and bunions will be treated. People will be pleased and the statistics will improve for a while, but what about the chronically ill—those with multi-system pathologies, waiting for complex, time-consuming and expensive procedures? They will continue to wait and to suffer. The Government's facile financial approach makes fiddlers out of managers and victims out of patients.
The Secretary of State should have invested the money in meeting genuine clinical need, targeting those most in need of treatment. He should also remember social need. Consider the elderly lady with a sore hip. She may not have the highest clinical need, but what if she lives four storeys up in a block of flats with a lift that hardly ever works? Such desperate social need is not recognised. She is a number on a list that is ever delayed because the resources that she requires are expensive.
If the Secretary of State were genuinely keen to achieve change rather than short-term political kudos, he would understand the folly of his approach to those requiring hospitalisation. If he put lists in the hands of primary care GPs, he could build on the unique clinical intimacy between British GPs and their patients. Operations would be done not because they were quick, cheap and easy but because they delivered the best results.
It is no coincidence that waiting lists have improved dramatically since GPs became personally involved, with doctors controlling when and where to provide an intervention and having a cheque-book to back up fulfilling the need. It is incontrovertible that one GP practice providing clinical care and managing resources will achieve more than 10 that do not—or more than 50-plus reluctant participants in one of the new

Government-imposed primary care groups. Such PCGs will undoubtedly mean that the initiative taken by GPs in the past on behalf of their patients will be lost, thus damaging the opportunity to provide more services at a doctor's surgery rather than in hospital, as well as damaging general improvements in hospital services.
If the Government want the best for patients, they must recognise the skills of GPs at practice level in identifying need. Such GPs support not just a list or a number but the individual who is damaged by disease or disability—the person who needs the help of the medical profession, irrespective of whether they are first or 101st on some list. That is what a visionary Government, unhampered by bigotry, should support. Of course, such practice already exists. The Conservative Government were operating such forward-thinking, innovative policy after the introduction of their reforms.
My constituents are not concerned directly that 10, 100 or 100,000 other people are waiting for an admission or an operation. If they are distressed, in pain or incapacitated, they want treatment as soon as possible. The only way in which the Labour Government will truly benefit patients is to admit the magnitude of their folly and recognise that waiting lists are an irrelevance. They should focus on the true indicator of success: waiting times that meet the needs of the individual and not the statistician.

Mr. Kevin Barron: I rise to support the amendment and to debate the motion.
Two words came to mind when I read the motion. One was "stones" and the other was "glass houses". The Tories seem to have some block—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State brought this up—in wanting to refer only to waiting lists since May 1997. We know fine well where the seed of the recent surge in NHS waiting lists lies—back in the first quarter of 1991, when the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) introduced his national health service reforms.
Before those reforms, there had never been NHS waiting lists of 1 million people. Over the two years following the reforms, we saw waiting lists rise in every quarter but two. The number went through the million mark and has remained in excess of that ever since. By the time Labour took office, waiting lists were at a record high and were rising faster than at any time in NHS history. I do not think that anybody is surprised at the fact that it will take time to stem the increase and bring the figures down.
I admire my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Government for taking the challenge and stating publicly that we shall do something about NHS waiting lists. I should tell Opposition Front Benchers and the House that a timetable for the pledge on waiting lists was never set before the election. I know, because I was party to the writing of that pledge into the manifesto and on to our pledge cards.

Mr. Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman can get his fix a little later in the debate.


A time was never set. In the past few months, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set a time by which we shall reduce waiting lists to last year's level. Then we shall start reducing them further.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is often very convincing, and is very nearly making a convincing point. He is failing to excuse one other thing. There cannot be a early pledge to do something as a first step in a Parliament—a manifesto applies only for one Parliament —if it is then announced that the pledge will be honoured only by the end of it.

Mr. Barron: I do not agree with that. The hon. Gentleman has covered health matters in the House long enough to recognise the reality of what has been happening in the NHS.

Mr. Brazier: Why pledge that waiting lists will be reduced?

Mr. Barron: Because we shall reduce them; that is why.
The motion
notes that current Government policies in respect of hospital closures and bed reductions are likely to increase the lists further".
About four weeks ago, Opposition Front Benchers did not know the Government's policy on hospital closures. Indeed, for a short time in the media, trust mergers became hospital closures. I was as confused as those in the Opposition Front-Bench team even before the first 24 hours of their trying to make that point were up.
If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is right in saying that there will be 3,000 more beds in the acute sector by the end of this financial year, it will be the first time that that has happened in the history of the NHS. We ought to be congratulating the Government on being prepared to take such action, given that, year on year, no matter who has been in office, there have been fewer beds at the end of each financial year than there were at the beginning ever since the NHS was brought into being.
In the Budget, the Chancellor provided an extra £500 million for health care, £ 417 million of which is to be spent on the Government's waiting lists initiative to provide those extra beds. About 850 schemes are being introduced by health authorities all over the country. Such schemes include the provision of more beds, the opening of more wards, more staff being taken on, more theatre time and the extension of treatment, and the introduction of weekend and evening surgeries. Those are not soundbites; they are clear and sensible ways of tackling the problems of NHS waiting lists.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) has had to leave the Chamber. Over the years, I have had a bit of time for her in her independent role as Chairman of the Health Committee. I wish that she had been a little more independent in her speech today. It is not true that the idea behind the waiting lists initiative is to introduce simple, quick and easy procedures. That is far from so. The hon. Lady said that we should target the most needy and not consider what is happening in the NHS. We can all consider individual need, but we must recognise the immediate impact that it has on waiting lists—whether for day surgery, in-patient surgery, or

whatever. We must consider procedures inside the NHS, to ensure that we get things right. We must ensure that money goes to specifics and gets things done.
In the Rotherham borough, health service partnerships have already agreed a plan of action. The waiting lists initiative in Rotherham health authority will mean an additional 24 gynaecology sessions, covering 100 additional cases, including weekend cases, at a cost of more than £100,000. There will be additional theatre lists for orthopaedics, dealing with an extra 115 cases at a cost of £105,000. There will be two additional ear, nose and throat lists a week, covering 175 cases. Later this year, depending on how things pan out, it is likely that there will be a third ENT consultant, whom we have wanted for many years in my local health service. That additional ENT provision will cost £112,000. We shall get an ophthalmic consultant and extra work at a cost of £131,000; an additional colonoscopy session for 20 cases, costing more than £21,000; and an extra consultant to treat 500 orthopaedic patients annually. We have been after orthopaedic consultants in Rotherham for many years. Unfortunately, it is not the best place in the world to work. We have great problems getting people to come to our area to work in the health service. That will cost £250,000.
For general surgery, we shall get an extra arteriogram session each week to deal with 120 cases, and additional endoscopy will treat 50 cases at a cost of more than £67,000. We shall get an alternate Friday prosthetic list to deal with 25 orthopaedic cases, costing more than £79,000. An additional oral surgery theatre list for 150 cases will cost more than £99,000.
Nearly £1 million is going into Rotherham to help people. Those targets, when met, will benefit hundreds of people who have been waiting for far too long on our national health service lists. Such initiatives should result, not only locally but nationally, in the biggest increase in operations in the history of the NHS and the biggest ever cut in waiting lists. The money will be targeted to deliver what patients want most: shorter waiting lists.
In addition to the extra money, about £500,000 is available in Rotherham for innovative ways of clearing waiting lists. That money will also be invested in reducing waiting lists by maintaining the flow of operations, building on our success last winter. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said that the £300 million for the winter crisis was wasted, but it did exactly what it was planned to do. It avoided the winter crises that we had year on year under the previous Government. We could not acclaim something that was not there and get it into the media. It is nonsense. Rotherham got £769,000 extra last winter to avoid what we had suffered in years gone by.

Mr. Brady: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that it was a mild winter and that pressure on the health service was less than it would have been in a normal winter?

Mr. Barron: I do not think that the facts prove that it was such a mild winter. The pressure was reduced by the initiatives mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, such as getting out into the community in Kent to stop flu epidemics. That was how the money was put to good use, to avoid the crises that we have had before.


Better primary, community and mental health services are coming under this Government. I have a health action zone in one of the poorest areas of Britain. It will start to examine people's problems and the problems that the health service has in delivering. The Government are doing things that have been sadly neglected for many years.
We shall also start to modernise the waiting list system. Some of the extra money will go on pioneering new streamlined appointment systems, so that day patients can book the dates of their operations. It is extraordinary that people go to their general practitioner and then have to wait weeks and weeks before seeing a consultant at the hospital, and then wait weeks for treatment. I can go to one of three travel agents in my town, book holidays, hotels, car hire and everything else anywhere in the world, but people cannot book into a consultant's clinic in a hospital. The information technology that the Government have been getting on with will help us to do that. It is much to their credit that they done it when previous Governments have neglected it.
This is targeted investment, not just giving money to the NHS. The Opposition can say, "We've been giving more than you; aren't we better than you?" but this is about targeting investment, so that we know that it will get waiting lists down and improve the NHS. Good management and innovative change are important. The Government will do better than previous Governments. All Governments do better than their predecessors, because medical science moves on. We shall do better in areas where the previous Government failed, by organising and managing the health service properly.
The 18 years of Conservative government saw waiting lists rise by more than 400,000. In the next four months under Labour, they will begin to fall, and they will continue to fall. The Opposition did not ask the electorate to vote for them again in 1992 by promising to ensure that hospital waiting lists increased. This Government have the courage to do things that many thousands of people want. We have the courage to set targets. The electorate will hold us to account. When we get through this first Labour Government in many years, the Opposition will be sorry that they tabled such a motion, because they will have to eat their words.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) gave his usual robust speech, but he did not answer the point that I put to him.
As always, we welcome the opportunity to debate health. We even welcome the opportunity to debate waiting lists, although, as I will explain, we think that the Government chose the wrong target, so this is the wrong focus for a debate.
When the Labour party was in opposition, it tried to think up a compact promise for what it would do for the national health service. Labour thought of a nice, tight soundbite, "We will save the NHS." I am happy about that, because the NHS was in some difficulty under that party's predecessors. The Labour party then tried to think what that would mean in substance. Despite all the sound advice that it will have received from professionals and

from within its own ranks that people care far more about how long they wait for treatment than about how many people are in the queue with them, in the end, the Labour party chose the wrong target. Labour made only one early pledge on health and, unfortunately, it was the wrong one. The Government are hoist by their own petard. They must deliver, but they are now in difficulties.
Rumour has it that some Ministers, including senior Ministers, know that they are spending money on the wrong things. This is their bed and they must lie on it. The Secretary of State took few interventions and, in particular, refused one from my medical friend, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), who may know something about the matter.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): My right hon. Friend knew what he was going to say.

Mr. Hughes: The difficulty may be that the Minister may not like what my hon. Friend was going to say. The Secretary of State listed things to do with waiting that mattered to patients. Every one was to do not with waiting lists but with waiting times—more clear evidence from him that the Government have got their target wrong.
That evidence is backed up by what the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said when in opposition. In 1996, when he launched the document—to which the hon. Member for Rother Valley may have been referring—"New Labour, New Life for Britain", and gave the early pledge, his explanation was:
waiting means misery for patients. They are often in pain or discomfort.
I could not agree more. We all understand that the longer people wait, the longer, by definition, they are likely to be in pain or discomfort.
Having adopted waiting lists, not waiting times, the Government are in considerable difficulty. There was no hint that it would take five years, the whole Parliament, to get 100,000 people off the list. There was no such qualification. I challenge any Labour Member to produce one bit of evidence from any Labour candidate who said that it would take the whole Parliament. It was not even said immediately after the general election, but said some little time later. Someone must have told the Secretary of State that he had better qualify it. That is not surprising: if one makes the wrong pledge, one ends up in difficulty.
It is not only me, my party or the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), but the British Medical Association, the Health Service Journal, the British Medical Journal and the Government's advisers who say, "It's the wrong target, Government. We are sorry that you made that so clear."
The only problem is that, although the Secretary of State has said that he is embarrassed about the fact that the numbers waiting are rising, nobody has yet owned up to the fact that the Labour party is embarrassed because it chose the wrong target. I hope that the Minister of State will say, "I'm sorry, we were wrong;"—it makes a welcome change to hear Governments of any colour admit that they were wrong—"but we chose the wrong target. We will deliver, although it will take us longer than we said and longer than we planned
—but actually it is waiting times, not waiting lists, that we should be talking about."


If the great socialist Labour party nirvana can be reached by—

Jackie Ballard: Socialist?

Mr. Hughes: That is doubtful; let us assume that it is neo-socialist, or new Labour.
If the great nirvana can be reached by taking 100,000 people off a waiting list that now consists of 1,300,000 people, that is a pretty mean, poor target. I do not think that out there the people will be greatly rejoicing at the prospect held out by the Government: "By the end of this Parliament, one in 13 people on the NHS waiting list will not be waiting any more, but 12 out of 13 will still be waiting. Sorry about that, kids." At that rate, it would take 50 years of Labour Governments to get those people off the list. I do not think that that is an encouraging prospect. It is a pretty thin, mean, small, pathetic target.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: rose—

Mr. Hughes: No, I shall not give way.
If that is all that the one promise made about health before the election means, it is pretty thin gruel.
I shall not rehearse the fact—because we all know it, and it is recounted every three months—that waiting lists have gone up ever since the election. For the first few three-month periods, that was not Labour's fault; for the second few, it was more Labour's fault; and, if the numbers keep going up, it will be even more Labour's fault.
We all understand that supertankers take a long time to turn around. I hope that the Secretary of State is right and the figures come down. Indeed, I hope that they come down by much more than 100,000—by more than 200,000 or by more than 300,000—but there ain't much sign of that yet. I certainly hope that our colleagues on the Labour Benches do not say at the next election, "We've done wonders; we've taken one in 13 people off the waiting list, and that allows us to come before you and ask for re-election."
We are debating waiting lists on a Tory motion, so it would be unfair not to say a word about the motion, or about the Tory record, despite the fact that, as the Tories are not in power and the Labour party is, what the Government do is more relevant at the moment. My job as the spokesman for an Opposition party is to hold to account the Government, rather than Her Majesty's official—more official than us—Opposition. [Interruption.] They are not the only official Opposition, but they are the only technically registered official Opposition, even if they are not always the most effective Opposition.
It is a bit difficult for the Tories to launch an attack about waiting lists and waiting times, for three statistical reasons. First, between 1979 and 1997—their famous 18 years—waiting lists rose by 546,000, or more than half a million. Secondly, under the Tories, a record number of people were waiting for more than a year for operations—there were 200,000 of them in September 1987. Thirdly, under the Tories, a record number of people had been waiting for more than two years for operations—almost 50,000 of them.
The Tory record is therefore difficult to defend, despite the fact that, at the end, although there were many more people waiting, there were fewer people waiting for longer—[Interruption.]—which we welcomed. We have always welcomed that.

Miss Widdecombe: Thank you.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for Rother Valley used a comparison that I had not thought of when he talked about stones and glass houses. I, on the other hand, was thinking about pots and kettles, which suggested to me the fact that there was "something of the night" about the Conservative attack—but I do not want to go further down that road.
The point made by the Secretary of State at the end of his speech, which I also made in an intervention to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, needs answering. The Tory party cannot credibly attack the Government on waiting lists while the Conservative shadow Chancellor says that the Labour party is profligate with public spending.

Mr. Duncan: Yes, it can.

Mr. Hughes: All right; the Tory party can say that waiting lists are too high and should come down, but that the money that the Labour party is putting in is far too much. [Interruption.] I shall wait for the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) to explain how two apparently contradictory statements—

Miss Widdecombe: The pledges are contradictory.

Mr. Hughes: I agree. We always said that before the election. The Minister of State was shadowing the health portfolio for Labour before the election, and he and his hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley will both know that we said then that Labour could not pledge to keep to Tory spending totals and still expect to save the NHS. Those pledges were incompatible, and have been proved to be incompatible. [Interruption.] There is not a punter out there who does not know that.
Saving the NHS needs more public money—[Interruption.]—as the Chancellor announced on Thursday.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is far too much sedentary comment, and we cannot have a very coherent debate with that background noise.

Mr. Hughes: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I now want to deal with the announcement about beds which was remade today—"remade", because the announcement that there would be 2,000 more beds in the health service this year, and 1,000 beds saved that otherwise would have gone, was made a fortnight ago. It appeared in the Evening Standard, for example, on 2 June. I have the list of those beds here, and I already knew that Guy's and St. Thomas's, my local trust, would get 24 more beds. That is another example of one of the recycled announcements at which the Labour party in government is so good. I welcome the fact that more beds will be kept this year; of course I do. I welcome, and do not even doubt, the fact that there will be 2,000 of them—


beds that would not have been kept or been reopened had it not been for waiting list money. I also welcome the fact that another 1,000 beds that would have been closed will be kept open.
However, I have not yet heard—I ask the Minister to tell us the answer in his winding-up speech—whether the money committed to doing that this year is guaranteed on a recurring basis for the three-year period that the Chancellor defined last Thursday. The Minister will understand that, if the money is not guaranteed, the beds may not be kept open after this year. There will then be a further crisis, and they will have to be reopened later using additional money. That is no way to run anything, let alone a health service.
My hon. Friends the Members for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) and for Oxford, West and Abingdon—in fact, probably all my English right hon. and hon. Friends—have told me that they know that the shortages in the health service, and the fact that we have so many people on waiting lists, are in part due to the fact that we do not have enough staff in the service. We have not had the money to recruit the 8,000-plus nurses that the health service is short of, or the 1,000-plus doctors, let alone the general practitioners.
Yesterday, I spoke to a recently retired very senior nurse manager who said that we were building up a huge crisis because staff did not want to come into the health service. I do not pretend that the Government do not understand that; I know that they are aware of the problem. It must be acknowledged, however, that we have to provide more than beds and operating theatres; we have to provide the staff.
I am not talking about existing staff working extra time–12 and 18-hour shifts—or about agency staff or staff on bank duty. I am talking about real permanent establishment staff who can supply all year the consistent teamwork to provide health care in the way that the NHS does best.
There have always been waiting lists. I suspect that doctors are keener on them than the rest of us, because they believe that lists are a good way of rationing. There has always been rationing, too, since the NHS was created—let us not delude ourselves about that. I rarely hear the fact admitted by either the Government or those on the official Opposition Front Bench.
I hope that, if not by the end of this Parliament—I see no sign of the present Government's delivering on the pledge—at least by the end of the next Parliament, we will have put enough money into the health service to reduce waiting times, and therefore waiting lists, to a reasonable level for everybody. In my book, "reasonable" means six months. I have worked out the figures and have explained them to colleagues in other places and at other times, and the Library has provided figures too. I cannot see why, with sufficient investment over five years, we cannot get waiting times down so that no one has to wait more than six months for any serious treatment.
People in many other countries do not have to wait longer than that. Longer lists are nonsense; they are evidence of the British queueing disease. When too many people are waiting for buses, once a few extra buses are provided to clear the backlog, one has to provide only enough to keep picking the people up from the bus stops.
If we provided a decent injection of money into the health service over the next five years, we could clear the backlog.
Of course demand rises, and of course we may have to put in a higher proportion of gross domestic product, but we could get waiting lists and times down to a reasonable level. There is a realistic difference between somebody with, say, an ingrowing toenail, who could reasonably be expected to wait 12 months, and somebody with a serious condition. If someone has a cataract, the longer the operation is delayed the more likely that person is to go blind. The longer a hip operation is delayed, the longer somebody is likely to be out of work. Some conditions are serious and need treatment soon, and some are less serious.
More people are waiting now than ever before, whatever the arguments about the detailed statistics. There is a crisis. Demand may have risen; expectations may have risen—but that is the position we are in. We need to respond to that, and the public want us to spend more money on health, to deal with those problems, than on any other part of the public service.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman says that we are not spending enough money on the health service, but would he speculate on what the state of the NHS would be if his party's spending plans had been implemented and £1 billion less had been spent on the NHS?

Mr. Hughes: If that had been a less predictable question, it might have caught me unawares. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer it."] Of course I shall answer it—unlike other hon. Members, I answer every question asked in the House. The reason why the hon. Gentleman makes that point is that he misunderstands that the Liberal Democrats argued for spending additional to inflation, not inclusive of inflation, as the Labour party's figures were. The debate between Labour and the Liberal Democrats has always been on that point.

Mr. Thomas: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman might not like the argument, but that is the difference. Before I sit down, I shall get rid of the history, because debates about what we said we would spend before the election are debates about history. I like history and am happy to debate historical points, but that is not what people outside think matters the most; they are concerned about what is to be spent now.

Mr. Andy King: The hon. Gentleman should be supporting us.

Mr. Hughes: Of course I support money going into the NHS, but I want more, the nation wants more and there is more available to spend. Let me tell the House how.
In the document produced by the Chancellor last week accompanying the first stage of the announcements of the outcome of the comprehensive spending review, "Stability and Investment for the Long Term", a revealing section on page 41 shows that the Government have more in reserves this year than they had expected at the time of the Budget. In the Budget, it was announced that there was estimated to be a £1.5 billion undershoot in public spending—spare money in reserve for this year; the Chancellor announced


last week that public spending last year undershot by £3 billion; therefore, there is in reserve an additional £0141.5 billion.

Mr. King: No.

Mr. Hughes: It is no good the hon. Gentleman saying no—that is what the Chancellor said last week.

Mr. King: It is what is done with it that counts.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already asked hon. Members to cut out the sedentary comments—they are not helping the debate.

Mr. Hughes: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I agree that it is what one does with the money that matters.
There is £1.5 billion extra in the reserves—£3 billion in all, sitting unallocated, waiting. Whereas the Government have so far announced £500 million extra—this picks up on the intervention from the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas)—we say that they should have allocated the health service £1.25 billion this year, to be spent on staff recruitment, the reduction of waiting lists and improvements to community care and social care, which help to prevent hospital bed blocking.
The 50th anniversary of the NHS is about to be celebrated. None of us is naive, so we do not doubt that there will be a bit of a song and dance and an announcement of more money for the health service. We are all ready for that and we shall welcome it, but the sum to be announced will have to be far greater if it is not to be misrepresented as largesse, when it is not very large at all. The reality is that there is £3 billion sitting in the reserves this year. The health service this year could easily have spent the money on funding the staff pay review all at once, instead of its having to be phased. That would have greatly helped morale and recruitment, but the Government have not done that; nor have they since increased pay for NHS staff, which hardly anyone in the House would resist.
The announcement that the Prime Minister should make is, at least, that real growth—not cash growth—this year should be 5 per cent. over that of last year and that, for the rest of this Parliament, it should be 4 per cent. a year. That is about another £1 billion this year coming out of the reserves and probably an additional £2 billion—real growth—each year for the remaining three years of this Parliament. We shall judge the Government by whether there is a real, significant and substantial increase in money for the health service, not by recycled announcements of a bit more money that will not go halfway toward meeting the shortfall accrued under the previous Government.
I leave the House with this reflection: despite the Chancellor's announcement last week and the fact that what should first be measured is quality, not quantity—the Secretary of State was right to say that what matters most is how good the health service is, not how much we put into it—there is not a single informed person in the country who does not believe that, unless we ratchet up considerably the relatively small amount that we put into the health service, our 6.5p in the pound, we shall not be able to sustain the health service at the level the public expect and need. The reason why the Labour

Government's rating in terms of public confidence in their handling of the health service has slipped so badly from last year to this is that the public do not see the money being forthcoming. Our challenge to the Government for the 50th anniversary of the NHS is to announce money that will keep the beds open next year and the year after, money that will keep the health service growing at a decent rate throughout the lifetime of this Parliament and money that will catch up with the consistent underfunding of the past 18 years.
The pledge on waiting lists was an early pledge which, sadly, will be delivered late, if at all. It was a modest pledge that will hardly affect most of the people waiting for treatment. It was the wrong pledge. The Government now need to change their priorities. If they do that and come up with the money, the NHS and its patients will be grateful; but, if they do not, they will surely and justifiably be held to account by the electorate.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: In the 18 months before the general election last May, my constituents had seen two thirds of their accident and emergency departments shut. All four local NHS trusts were in severe financial difficulty, staff morale was at a low ebb and, not surprisingly, local waiting lists were at record levels and set to rise further. In the years after the Tory reforms, the NHS had degenerated into a bureaucratic health market, kept going mainly by the commitment of NHS staff. It had become a patchwork of businesses competing with each other, dependent for their funding and for their very existence on their success in winning orders and making money.
On Second Reading of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) declared that the reforms would
herald a new era for the National Health Service".
How right she was, but the truth is that that era is one that my constituents are delighted to have seen consigned to history. The right hon. Lady also claimed that the reforms would turn the NHS into
the thriving, expanding concern that it should be."—[Official Report, 11 December 1989; Vol. 163, c. 722.]
She was entirely wrong on that point. The reality of the NHS at the time of the general election was one of rising waiting lists and record sums being spent on administration. The Conservative NHS reforms that she endorsed so enthusiastically turned access to health care into a lottery. People living in the same borough—even in the same street—were confronted with widely differing patterns of care and waiting times for operations. My constituents suffered particularly in respect of ophthalmology, as waiting times for the patients of GP fundholders were up to two and a half times shorter than those for patients of non-fundholding GPs.
The financial position inherited by the Labour Government was appalling: 59 out of 100 health authorities ended the last financial year under the Conservative Government in deficit, as did 128 NHS trusts. At the same time, huge sums were being wasted on bureaucracy and administration as, from 1989-90, annual spending on managerial and administrative staff almost doubled, from £1.2 billion to £2.3 billion. Indeed, in one year, spending on managers soared by 17 per cent.,


while spending on nurses rose by only 1 per cent. Those who were Ministers in the Conservative Government should admit that they took their eye off the ball. The Audit Commission found that senior management costs in some trusts were more than double those in others, for no comparable reason. Estimates put GP fundholding costs at £80,000 per practice per year, totalling more than £200 million spent each year administering fundholding— money that could, and should, have been put into patient care.
I can think of no other area of government that so encapsulates the way in which the Conservatives let down the people of this country, or that so epitomises the mismanagement and incompetence that riddled the previous Government. It is a story of Tory failure to embarrass and shame even the most senior figures in the party.
The predecessor of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), said only recently:
We had a very clear policy on health up until 1st May. It was rejected by the electorate.
That policy was decisively rejected by the electorate. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) owned up in his book to some embarrassment about
the excessive cost in managerial overheads of GP fundholding".
Perhaps, when he sums up the debate, he will tell us whether that remark will be in the paperback version.
I congratulate my hon. Friends on the Front Bench because, in contrast to the record of failure and mismanagement of the Conservative party, they have begun to tackle the deep-seated problems that the Conservatives bequeathed us. The NHS White Paper and the public health Green Paper hold out the prospect of a health service that truly works in co-operation to provide high-quality health care. Doctors, nurses and their management are genuinely beginning to put together a new health service, and are working much more closely with partners in local authorities and the voluntary sector.
In that context, the extra money allocated for the waiting lists initiative is extremely welcome. The extra 3,000 beds to treat patients, which the initiative will fund, are in stark contrast to the record of bed closures under the Conservative Government, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said. I particularly welcome the 450 extra beds in London. My health authority is to receive an extra £3 million, over and above what the Government have already allocated to it. Some £1 million of that will be used to reduce waiting lists at Northwick Park hospital by an estimated 1,200 patients.
Mount Vernon hospital, which is located in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) but serves my constituents, suffered considerable speculation about its future under the previous Government, which was exacerbated when its accident and emergency department was closed. The extra 15 beds that will open at Mount Vernon and the £250,000 from Brent and Harrow health authority's allocation from the waiting lists initiative will offer confirmation of Mount Vernon's continuing viability and reassure my constituents, who felt let down by the previous Government's failure to stop cuts at that hospital.
I also welcome the plans to establish in my constituency a three-way partnership between Northwick Park, which is the district general hospital, Harrow and Hillingdon Healthcare NHS trust, which is the local community services trust, and Harrow social services to increase community nursing. In the first instance, that will facilitate discharges from hospital and, secondly, it will help to keep out of hospital people who would, perhaps, have been bed blockers, and who can be more appropriately cared for in their home. Reforms in the White and Green Papers will continue to promote that spirit of partnership.
Health improvement plans and the new duty to work in partnership with other care agencies will be essential in cementing effective joint working between local authority departments and health care agencies to continue to tackle waiting list reductions. I hope that Ministers will ensure the speedy dissemination of the lessons to be learned from the way in which health action zones and the pilots under the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997 are working so that all patients can benefit.
The Government are tackling the waiting list problem. More beds are being provided; more wards are being opened; more staff are being recruited and more theatre time is becoming available. The Government should be congratulated on fulfilling their first waiting list promise, made last November, that by the end of last March nobody would be waiting more than 18 months for treatment. That target has been achieved by the work of health authorities and trusts, which is now being stepped up through the work of the waiting lists action team and the appointment of the chief executive of Leicester royal infirmary to reinforce the national drive to slash NHS waiting lists. The Government will fulfil our pledges to cut waiting lists.
It would be worth hearing from the Conservative party what exactly their policy is on the national health service. What actions and reforms would the party of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton implement if, God forbid, it were still in power? Do Conservative Members still cling to a belief in the discredited reforms that they so enthusiastically backed nine years ago, which produced a health service weighed down by bureaucracy? Do they support our reforms, but feel a little shy about owning up to that, or do they have something else in mind for the national health service?
I ask that question because, on 13 June in The Daily Telegraph, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald described the NHS as needing not just a little tinkering, but a radical overhaul. It would be worth while if Conservatives clarified what they mean by a radical overhaul. Do they mean, for example, that the national health service should be privatised? I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) is no longer in his place, because I remember only too well his proposal to privatise many of the social care agencies. It would be interesting to know whether the Conservative party continues to support that proposal. Had that been implemented, it would have been disastrous for partnerships between social care agencies and the health service to reduce waiting lists.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon wrote in 1994, when he was working in Conservative central office, that it would be best for the Conservative party if there were absolutely no publicity about the national health service.


I suspect that, if he were still working in Tory central office, he would be arguing that it would be better for the Conservative party if no publicity were given to the national health service for the next 10 years.

Mr. John Horam: The famous NHS waiting list pledge, on which the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) and other Labour Members were elected, was quintessentially new Labour in that it was superficially impressive, would not cost very much and would make almost no difference even if it were implemented.
As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who has just left the Chamber, said, it was a pretty thin pledge in the first place. I am sorry that I am agreeing with him—perhaps he is uncomfortable with that when his party is so close to the Labour party. The pledge was almost as thin as the hon. Gentleman's famous pledge to do something about the NHS by putting another 6p on a packet of cigarettes, which was the Liberal Democrats' funding suggestion at the general election.
From an ordinary person's perspective, a waiting list reduction of 100,000 is significant, but if we consider the total waiting list—of 1.3 million—it is not. It is even less significant if we remember that the pledge was to increase the number of patients treated, which is roughly 9 million in any year. That is a thin pledge.
The £100 million of savings on bureaucracy, which the Labour party pledged would pay for more patients to be treated and reduce waiting times, was equally thin. Again, to an ordinary person £100 million sounds like a lot, but it stands against the £40 billion spent on the NHS in England, Scotland and Wales in any one year. It is a meagre amount to achieve an insignificant objective, and it has made very little difference.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Horam: We have a relatively short time for the debate and I have already referred to the hon. Lady's colleague, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, so I shall not give way.
The public have noticed that even Labour's meagre promise has not been fulfilled and that nothing has changed except that the problem is worse than when the Labour party was in opposition. In my area, for example, waiting lists have gone up to 8,500 over the past 12 months; they have gone up by 140,000 over the country as a whole. I accept that if one throws enough money at the problem the figure will begin to decrease. I expect that there will be cheers from the Labour Benches at some stage in this Parliament; I did not imagine that it would happen within one year, but perhaps within in two or three years the Government will say that they have reduced the number of patients not being treated compared with a figure when the Conservatives were in power.
How did the Government get into this situation? There is one simple reason—

Helen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Horam: Perhaps the hon. Lady will let me complete my sentence. It is because they have not

continued the funding that we put into the NHS. They have reduced the steady increase of extra funding that the Conservative Government put into the NHS year after year. The present Government are now increasing it—as they did previously—by 2 per cent. a year; we increased it by more than 3 per cent. a year when we were in power. That is the difference between us.
All the recycled pledges, recycled beds and recycled figures do not add up to anything by comparison with the simple fact that the present Government are spending less than we achieved throughout our 18 years in power. They have cut the increase—

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman was voting against the Conservative Government for much of the time—he was a Liberal.

Mr. Horam: The present Government have cut the year-by-year increase in NHS funding achieved by the Conservative party. That is the simple fact. Even the Secretary of State's brusque interventions cannot conceal the fundamental facts about the NHS. The Government have cut spending. That is not what the public expected and none of the Government's recycled pledges can detract from that reality.
What are the Government trying to do to get out of the mess that, as the Secretary of State admitted, he created by his injudicious pledges? He is trying to bully managers throughout the country into giving priority to reducing waiting lists. That is not a sensible way to carry on.

Mrs. Ellman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Horam: No.
As the Secretary of State should know, even he, as Secretary of State, cannot turn round this supertanker with his own hands. He counts on the 1 million people—he keeps quoting that figure—employed in the national health service to do the job for him. They are the people at the chalkface.
If he knows anything, the Secretary of State should know that one cannot declare that, in one six-month period, priority will be given to accident and emergency services and, in the next, to waiting lists; the people will have gone. If, in one period, priority is given to accident and emergency consultants and nurses, they cannot be switched to orthopaedics, gastroenterology or urology in the next six months. The people cannot be made to reappear out of the hedgerows of the national health service once they have gone. One cannot run a service that way.
I repeat the argument made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey: the reduction of waiting lists is the wrong target. What matters to the ordinary person in the street is not waiting lists—whatever they may be—but waiting times. Under the previous Conservative Government, in the period after 1988, when the reforms were introduced, the average waiting time decreased from nine months to four months. That was one of the previous Government's major achievements. The average waiting time for treatment was reduced by more than half during those seven or eight years.
Labour failed to address that issue in its famous pledge. The Government are now failing to address it in their attempts to bring their pledges under control, and they


will continue to fail to address it if they continue with the absurd reduction of waiting lists aim as a result of their pledge—a cross that they took up themselves.
What should the Government be doing? The hon. Member for Harrow, West asked what the Conservatives would do if we were once again in power. First, we would reintroduce Conservative levels of spending —as the Government should. We increased spending by 3 per cent. in real terms over 18 years.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Under the spending plans that the hon. Gentleman must have agreed, my health authority would have received two and a half times less than the current Government are giving it.

Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman may talk about his authority until he is blue in the face. In the country as a whole, spending increased by 3 per cent. in real terms, on average, during the last 18 years of Conservative government. It has increased by only 2 per cent. in the first two years of the Labour Government. That is fact, and it is one reason why waiting lists have lengthened.
I hope, as a Conservative Back Bencher, that if we were returned to power we would increase spending to the levels that we achieved in the last period of Conservative power. If the Government were to do so over the next three years—they are approaching the end of their comprehensive spending review, so in a few weeks we shall know what health will receive—it would cost them approximately £10 billion over three years. If, at the end of July. the Department does not receive at least £10 billion for health spending, the Government will have failed, over the next three years—never mind over the Parliament—to match what the Conservatives achieved over 18 years in power. The Government cannot get away from the fact that they are cutting spending by comparison with what we achieved.
Above all, the NHS wants a regular increase in spending. No party in the history of the NHS has achieved that. The NHS wants to feel that it will not receive an increase of 5 per cent. one year, 2 per cent. the following year, 8 per cent. the year after and perhaps no increase the next. It does not want that because it leads to bad planning, as switching priority from accident and emergency one month to waiting lists the next does. The NHS needs a regular, sustained increase over three to five years—the period of one Parliament. It is time that we, as politicians, addressed ourselves to that point. The NHS is underfunded; at least we can achieve continuity and stability in its funding increases.
Finally, the Secretary of State should consider his macho management style. People are working as hard as they can to fulfil these ridiculous pledges; it will not do to say that people will be sacked just like that. As a result of the Conservative reforms, we have built up a considerable core of clinical directors who are both managers and clinicians and know what life is like at the chalkface in the NHS. It simply is not good enough to produce diktats from Whitehall, or the Kremlin in Leeds, and expect them to follow them. We should trust them to manage the NHS as it should be managed. The Secretary of State would receive a much better response by doing so than by coming out with these absurd proposals. I hope

that we would do so if we were returned to power. That would produce a better NHS than the Government are likely to, on their present plans.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I support the Secretary of State's amendment to the Opposition motion.
I am pleased that the shadow Secretary of State is in her place. She made an inadequate but not surprising speech, given that she is on record as saying recently that
Conservative policy isn't going anywhere, because we haven't actually worked out a policy.
I understand that both she and her deputy—her sidekick—have very little experience of the NHS, as they both go private.
I should like to place on the record the fact that the shadow Secretary of State cannot escape her past. Not only is she inexperienced in the NHS; her most famous encounter with the NHS was when, as a Home Office Minister, she advocated shackling pregnant prisoners. She now pretends that she did not support the policy, but that is untrue—and I know, because I obtained an Adjournment debate on the subject during that period.
We need to explain how our policies will shorten waiting lists—they will shorten, because our approach is radically different from that of the Conservatives. As the Secretary of State outlined, we want to mould health services to meet patients' needs. That means modernising waiting lists. We want to increase public confidence in the NHS; shortening waiting lists is part of that process.
However, as the Secretary of State said, the national health service is a huge organisation. I accept that more than 1 million people work for it and that it will take some turning around. The national health service was neglected for 18 years; that is why we were returned with a landslide majority. The Conservatives seem to have learnt nothing from the state that they are in as a party, having been judged by the public on what they did to the national health service.
In the past 14 months, we have made a real start. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) said, more than 850 schemes are now in place to shorten waiting lists. We have given an extra £2 billion for the national health service throughout the country and started the biggest hospital building programme in its history. One of the most important things we have done is publish a White Paper that sets out our far-reaching programme; it has some vision in it.
We have started to dismantle the internal market. Anyone who is still pleading in its favour has been silent today—I believe because Conservative Members have realised that it only produced a huge paper chase and increased administration and billing.
We are focusing on quality. I am pleased about the development of the national services framework to improve access and quality across the country. I am excited by the proposals for a commission for health improvement and the national institute for clinical excellence. Two recent scandals highlight the need for those initiatives. The Opposition were in charge when those scandals were occurring and being covered up. The Bristol case and the failure of cancer screening in Exeter and at Kent and Canterbury damaged public confidence in the NHS and demonstrate clearly the need for an added safeguard.


Doctors from the commission will visit NHS trusts at least every three to four years. Where was such monitoring of quality and access when the Conservatives were in power? It was non-existent, and if hon. Members raised the matter in the House they were told to shut up because the Conservatives were doing everything right—but we know that they were not. That initiative is welcome if it will help to reduce waiting lists and wastefulness in the health service.
The figures that will be collected will cover various aspects of clinical care, including hospital deaths, complication rates after operations, death rates after heart attacks and death rates after fractured neck of femur. Such information can help a national health service that knows where it is going. Thanks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the health service does know where it is going.
The Green Paper on public health, with its proposals for tackling health inequalities and reducing avoidable death and illness, is one of the most radical initiatives since the inception of the national health service. By reducing health inequalities, waiting lists will be reduced. If people are not ill, they do not need hospital beds. The Green Paper is out for consultation now and will be a major step forward in breaking down barriers between health and social services.
I compliment my right hon. Friend on his honesty about care in the community. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) may laugh, but for the past 18 years his party used a concept on which we all agreed to close down wholesale care for the mentally ill. I hope that he is not laughing about what we read in the papers about the tragedies of mentally ill patients such as Christopher Edwards and Richard Linford. I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels a little guilty about that, because his party was in charge when the scandal took place.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) spoke about a little boy. I wonder whether she would like to speak to the parents of Christopher Edwards, who was not on a waiting list. There were no beds for him or Richard Linford and they ended up in a prison cell together. My right hon. Friend is to be commended on recognising that community care needs a good shake-up and that we did not get it right over the past 18 years.
The Green Paper is relevant to keeping down waiting lists. We must provide more access to treatment more quickly. We must recognise that health inequalities are tied into low income and that the income gap has widened massively under the Tories. We must recognise, as my right hon. Friend has done, that we need to do something about sex education, and about tackling drugs, smoking and bad housing. If we reduce bad health, people will not need to go into hospital.
The Green Paper proposes partnerships between local authorities and voluntary organisations and talks about going into schools to preach about preventable health problems. All that was anathema to the Conservatives when they were in power. They had their chance and they blew it. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald may laugh, but I thought that her speech was superficial.
The Opposition say that the Government have nothing to offer hon. Members by way of extra resources. Let me put on record what we have in Calderdale. We are on the

verge of being signed up for a new hospital. I pleaded with the Conservative Government for 18 years for a new hospital and now we are about to get one. We have received extra money from the waiting list initiative, over and above inflation.
Our health authority received an extra £118,000 for breast cancer, which was extremely welcome. The previous Government neglected that area, even though many of us in the House pushed it for years. Twenty-seven beds that were due for closure under the previous Government are now to be kept open. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald tells us that we are getting less, but we have the facts at our fingertips so we know that we are getting more. It is there for all to see and it will be good for my constituents.
We are getting rid of the hated internal market and replacing it with integrated care. The idea of GP commissioning is far superior to GP fundholding. We do not want to continue with a system that wasted money—and we all know the scandals that arose from it.
The Leader of the Opposition has seen fit to appoint a rather intolerant and narrow-minded shadow Secretary of State. The British people will have noted that move. They have never trusted the Tories with the national health service and they never will again.

Mr. Julian Brazier: I welcome the opportunity to debate bed closures and to support the Opposition motion. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) for her support for my local hospital, Kent and Canterbury, which is faced with a rundown virtually to cottage hospital status if East Kent health authority's proposals are adopted. Just last week our community health council stated that those proposals were unacceptable in their present form.
East Kent health authority has repeatedly failed to identify the aim of its proposals. It keeps quoting a view with which everyone agrees—that working practices and configurations must change as patients' requirements and expectations rise—but nowhere has it identified a clear objective. In its consultation document it rules out money as the main driving force, and instead refers vaguely to
factors involving the supply of doctors, the way they train and the new ways they need to work".
One of the two principal bodies responsible for policing doctors' training and working practices, the Royal College of Physicians, stated at the outset that it disagreed with the proposals, and local representatives of the Royal College of Surgeons have more recently given a clean bill of health to local acute hospitals and stated that they do not see the need for the proposals. Why does not the Department tell EKHA to go back and think again about proposals that have generated tens of thousands of objections from the community?
East Kent has recently suffered from bed shortages, so it beggars belief that the closure of nearly 400 beds at the hospital and a large number at Dover is proposed. Even meeting EKHA' s reduced bed totals under the proposal would mean expanding bed provision at Ashford and Thanet, despite recruiting shortages in Thanet.

Mr. Roger Gale: My hon. Friend is aware that an almost certain consequence of Kent and Canterbury's proposals would be the transfer of cancer care


to Canterbury and the closure of the unit at Maidstone. I cannot believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) would welcome that on behalf of her constituents. More important, the proposal would lead inexorably to the closure of Faversham hospital, Whitstable and Tankerton hospital, Queen Victoria hospital, Herne Bay hospital and Deal hospital and the downgrading of the Buckland hospital in Dover—a town larger than Canterbury.
I do not believe that my constituents in Herne Bay would welcome the loss of beds in the Queen Victoria or Herne Bay, or the loss of facilities there and the potential for the development of telemedicine. Does my hon. Friend believe that his constituents would welcome such a loss at the Whitstable and Tankerton hospital?

Mr. Brazier: The Kent and Canterbury proposals—which I support—do not include downgrading the cancer facility in Maidstone. Rather, they make it quite clear that we need both facilities in Kent: one to cover the east and one to cover the west. They do not challenge any community hospitals and they certainly do not threaten the Whitstable and Tankerton hospital, whose support group is also championing the cause of Kent and Canterbury hospital.
As well as threatening a large reduction in bed numbers in East Kent at a time of bed shortages, East Kent health authority's proposals threaten our five regional specialties. The cancer care facility at Kent and Canterbury was one of only three last year to win a charter mark for excellence. If that unit were closed, it would move out of East Kent, resulting in some 20,000 patient visits each year for radiotherapy alone to Maidstone—which has the closest alternative unit. That would have knock-on effects for people awaiting treatment in Maidstone. Renal and haemophilia treatment, neurophysiology and neonatal intensive care would also have to leave Kent and Canterbury, and some services would leave East Kent. EKHA has admitted that the destruction and rebuilding of those teams elsewhere involves considerable risk. However, as the community health council points out, the health authority has done no proper risk analysis of its proposals.
The loss of access to a broad range of other acute medical services is also a cause of huge disquiet in the community. Almost all individual responses to EKHA's proposals from outside the Isle of Thanet—which comprises less than a quarter of the population—have opposed the changes. For the people who live in the Canterbury city council area, which on its own has a larger population and a larger elderly population than the Thanet district council area, and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and for the tens of thousands of people who live in small villages in other districts that are served by Kent and Canterbury—Canterbury is the hub of the bus system for the whole of east Kent—the proposals represent a serious threat.
Any private sector organisation that invested heavily in two sites—an acute hospital was built recently in Thanet and many millions of pounds have been invested in regional specialties at the Kent and Canterbury in the past few years—and then said that it had to close one or other of those facilities would be reasonably expected to take some trouble over its financial estimates.
East Kent health authority, however, submitted its estimates for changes in cancer care without consulting Maidstone, although Maidstone will be pivotal to the health authority's cancer proposals. EKHA appears to have ignored the costs of redundancy payments to consultants, nurses and other staff who may choose not to move to another location, and its proposals appear to have built in nothing for the extra ambulance costs involved in moving more people greater distances. Above all, the health authority's wholly unrealistic bed numbers make the financial side of the proposal laughable.
Closure of Kent and Canterbury would mean that East Kent would lose a hospital which, partly because of its proximity to the university and the extra educational and training facilities that it provides, has proved extremely effective in attracting talent to the region. It has proved possible to utilise talents across all three major acute sites by working together on the children's site. That would not be possible if we lost the middle site in the region; the extended distance and the additional time that it would take to travel between Ashford and Thanet would make joint working impractical.
I hope that East Kent health authority will see sense. I hope that, at its meeting in a few days' time, it will reconsider and not seek to drive through its proposal—and I am delighted that Canterbury and Thanet community health council has made clear its intention to refer the matter to the Secretary of State if EKHA persists. I hope that the Secretary of State will listen hard to the counsel not only of several Conservative Members but of the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), who participated in a recent delegation to Downing street on the subject. I hope that the Secretary of State will throw out this dreadful proposal that threatens to do much damage to the people of East Kent.

Ms Rosie Winterton: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate. We all know from our postbags the anguish that is caused to people awaiting NHS treatment. I have personal experience of that as my father has been waiting some months for a knee operation, and I am aware of how waiting can put people's lives on hold. It affects not only the person awaiting treatment, but his or her family. That is why I think that the Government's commitment to reducing waiting lists is so important.
Doncaster health authority in my constituency has warmly welcomed the Government's initiative. Even though the health authority already has the smallest number of people waiting more than 12 months for treatment in the Trent region, the extra £1.7 million that the authority has been allocated has allowed it to agree a waiting list target of 4,600 to be achieved by the end of March next year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) referred to the importance of going back to 1991 when examining the whole picture regarding waiting lists, but I am happy to go back to 1997. In April of that year, the waiting list was 5,773. That means that, by next year, the waiting list will have been cut by 1,200. My health authority also expects that substantial progress will be made in reducing the waiting list by September this year. The built-in incentive of receiving £170,000 on top of the funds already allocated has concentrated minds on making real progress in reducing waiting lists. That can only benefit my constituents.


We cannot look at the waiting lists initiative in isolation. My hon. Friend referred to the health action zones, and Doncaster is a part of one. The zones enable the health authority and local social services departments to work together on several initiatives, particularly tackling the effects of industrial diseases and the problem of teenage pregnancies. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) referred to the partnership between social services and the health service. I believe that it is vital to get the balance right, as that is the way forward when it comes to improving health services.
Doncaster has also been awarded pilot status as part of the healthy schools initiative, which will allocate an extra £150,000 to schools to enable them to introduce health initiatives. We have made excellent progress with the establishment of primary care groups, which will reduce the fragmentation and division caused by the previous Government's policies and allow the greater planning of patient services by general practitioners in my area, who have welcomed the initiative. Substantial progress is being made in improving health care.
Operations will always be cancelled because of emergency cases, which are beyond the control of doctors and hospitals. However, I think that better information could be provided to patients about the reason for operation cancellations. Too often, the letters that are sent out are quite brusque and do not include further dates when people might expect their operations to be carried out. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to give an assurance that we can address such matters.
I have received a number of complaints about general practitioners who, without giving any real reason, refuse to take pensioners on to their lists. People sometimes get the impression that there are GPs who cherry-pick their patients, refusing those who need what they think might be expensive care. Would my right hon. Friend consider some form of appeal system against that happening, or at least ensure that more information is given about why someone is refused treatment? People feel resentful when they are taken off a list or not taken on one without the reason being explained to them.
Before the general election last year, I visited my local hospital. Staff morale was at all-time low and the management was in despair. A few weeks ago, I returned to the hospital to present the staff awards. The atmosphere was completely different. The mood of the staff and of management was so much more upbeat. There was absolute certainty that the extra resources allocated to Doncaster health authority would have a great impact on reducing waiting lists. Having that as a long-term objective is something of which the Labour Government can be proud. It will make a real difference to many of my constituents and I am proud to be associated with any initiative in that regard, as I am proud to see a Secretary of State who has the guts to do something about reducing waiting lists.

Mr. David Amess: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on her magnificent speech. It greatly cheered Conservative Members. I must be careful how I phrase my next sentence, but I am not sure that the Secretary of State for Health knows quite how to deal with my right hon. Friend. Certainly, we Conservative Members look forward to future battles.
I should say something kindly about Health Ministers. They are courteous, which is more than can be said of all Ministers. They reply reasonably quickly to letters, which again is more than can be said of all Ministers. However, their policies are deeply flawed.
The idea that the Minister of State can go ahead and press his amendment is bizarre. If he reads the amendment carefully, he will find that it states clearly that no one has had to wait more than 18 months for treatment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald drew the attention of the Secretary of State to a case of someone who had waited 19 months. I think the right hon. Gentleman said that he would reflect on the matter. That being the case, it surely would not be right for the Minister of State to press ahead with the Government amendment.
A bizarre feature of the debate is that anyone would think that Labour had not won the election. I thought that the Labour party won the election and formed the Government over a year ago. As we reflect on what has taken place over the past two and a half hours, it seems that the Labour Government are responsible for nothing over the past year and that it is all the fault of the Conservatives. Time after time, Ministers have blamed Essex county council, which was Conservative for only a month, for everything that is wrong is the county. Yet the Government, who are now in their second year of office, apparently are to blame for absolutely nothing. That is bizarre.
I resent the insinuation from Labour Members that Conservatives do not care about the health service. We all know how cynical Labour is about the health service. We can all remember "Jennifer's Ear" and the other propaganda coups that went wrong. That is why I was drawn to read the Daily Mirror two weeks ago, when the headlines were less than flattering about the Secretary of State for Health. The right hon. Gentleman's relationship with the Daily Mirror now seems to be a little sour.

Mr. Keith Darvill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Amess: I think the agreement is that the Minister of State will start his reply at 25 minutes to 7. That being so, I do not think that he would be too pleased if I gave way and took extra time. The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), will start the winding-up speeches soon. It would be unfair on the two remaining speakers if I took extra time.
The Labour party has been cynical in the way that it has used the health service. I and my family use the health service. We do not have private health care but, given the way that the Government are continuing, we shall need it. They have been cynical in so many ways. I was proud to be associated with Lord Moore and Mrs. Edwina Currie when they were involved in the Department of Health. I learned at first hand what an excellent national health service we have. That can be proved by the ages to which people are living now and the stage at which babies can be saved. Things thrived under 18 years of Conservative government.
I heard my previous constituency referred to in a seated observation. I was proud to be associated with the health service in my former constituency.

Helen Jones: Not proud enough to stay there.

Mr. Amess: I shall come to that in a moment.
When the accident and emergency unit in my former constituency was due to be closed, I joined the march. The unit was supposed to be closed on the Friday. I had a row, first, with one of the Conservative Health Ministers and, secondly, with the chairman of the health authority. After a meeting two days before the unit's proposed closure, the health authority decided to keep it open. The following year, it wished to remove the gynaecological section. I again did battle with the then Minister. That section is also still in my former constituency. I was proud to lay the foundation stone for the cancer unit and for the hospice in my former constituency.
I am pleased now to be associated with the various services in my new constituency. It is wrong for Labour Members to sneer and allege that Conservatives do not care about the national health service. Let us consider the record for which Labour Members are responsible since 1 May 1997. During the general election campaign, my opponent said:
Cut NHS waiting lists by treating an extra 100,000 patients as a first step by releasing £100 million saved from NHS red tape.
Labour Members know only too well that they misled people. They pretended that waiting lists would be reduced. They did not lead the British people to expect them to be increased, and the British people never understood that the new Secretary of State for Health would say, "They have gone up but we shall get it right eventually." Who is kidding whom on that issue? The Labour party misled the British people.
In my constituency, I am pleased that our hospital is a centre of excellence. It is the only hospital in Essex that has acquired associated university teaching hospital status. It is now a cancer treatment centre of excellence. It has received the King's Fund accreditation award. However, let us consider what has happened to hospital waiting lists in my constituency. Last year, there were 9,745 people on waiting lists. In only a year, the numbers have risen to more than 13,000. That is entirely the fault of a rotten Labour Government. The weasel words of the Secretary of State do not wash with me.
I draw the attention of the Minister of State to waiting lists because I have no doubt that, when he receives his brief, he will tell us that they do not really matter. I was very impressed by an article that appeared in the Health Service Journal, and I shall quote from it. The author wrote:
Of course, some people claim waiting lists don't matter. I'm afraid they are badly out of touch with patients' priorities. Let's not forget the longest average waiting times are not for procedures of dubious effectiveness but for pain-easing, disability-reducing, highly cost-effective operations such as cataracts and joint replacements. Cutting waiting lists will cut average waiting times for these so-called non-urgent cases.
As important, long waiting lists undermine public confidence in the NHS. They embody the sense of bureaucracy, slowness and inconvenience at the heart of declining satisfaction with the health service. Opinion polls consistently show that waiting lists are far and away patients' greatest concern about the NHS. By comparison with other countries' healthcare systems, they are our Achilles' heel. Like it or not, lengthening waiting lists are a powerful metaphor for the state of the health service. This remains stubbornly true despite the government's sustained attempts to divert attention to other aspects of waiting.
I wonder whether my hon. Friends can guess who the author is. He is none other than the Minister of State, Department of Health who, in a few moments, will try to

justify what the Government have done since 1 May 1997. I agree with every word that he wrote in that article on 26 March 1998.
We all know what is happening with waiting lists. Waiting list money is being spent on less serious cases, because other cases have an impact on social services, which themselves have insufficient funding. That means that seriously ill people, including those waiting for cardiac surgery, are not having their wait shortened and may die while on the waiting list. Day case surgery, which is relatively cheap and not life-threatening, but performance of which reduces waiting lists dramatically, is taking place under the new Labour Government—that is their priority. Patients often wait in excess of 12 months for joint replacements and have severely impaired quality of life in that time. Some are being forced into the private sector, using their life savings.
A year ago, Labour celebrated at the Royal Festival hall, with the clarion call, "Things can only get better." They are not getting better for people who are struggling to pay their mortgages with increasing interest rates, who send their children to schools with increasing class sizes or who are waiting to have operations. The Government have let the people down.

Mr. David Lock: First, may I reflect on why this subject has been chosen for debate? The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) inadvertently let the cat out of the bag. Was it chosen because Conservative Members are concerned about waiting lists, because people on waiting lists are suffering or because people on waiting lists pay taxes for the national health service without receiving treatment to which they are entitled? No. She said that waiting lists were the subject for the debate because the Labour party had msade them the subject. My party did that because they matter to people, to people in the NHS and to people who are suffering, which is why they were an election pledge and why they are important.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lock: I shall not give way, because I do not have sufficient time.
Secondly, primary care groups, which have been criticised by Conservative Members, will at least mean that those people who are waiting will do so in an orderly and equitable queue, as opposed to fundholding being a charter for queue jumpers. People must be treated according to their health needs, not according to the status of their doctor.
Thirdly, we should reflect on the incompetence of the people who were put in charge of health services when the Conservatives were in power. For example, by last year, Worcestershire health authority was overspending by £8 million a year and had a cumulative deficit of about £20 million. Those serious problems are being addressed, and painful decisions are being taken, but it would have been better if they had been considered and difficult decisions taken before the general election.

Mr. Gill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way, on that point?

Mr. Lock: No, I shall not give way.


The painful decisions that we are taking in Worcestershire will be considerably better for the extra £13 million, over and above spending figures that were published before the general election by the Conservatives, that has gone into the health authority as a result of decisions taken by the Government. There are options for the people of Wyre Forest, whom I represent, and the matter is with my hon. Friend the Minister, but if it were not for that extra money, there would be no options and there would be nothing for him to consider. Waiting lists in Worcestershire will come down, as they will come down elsewhere, as a result of decisions taken by the Government. For that reason, I shall support the amendment.

Mr. Amess: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister to include in an amendment a statement that he has reason to believe is inaccurate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): The Minister is entirely responsible for amendments that he tables or statements that he makes in the House.

Mr. Alan Duncan: The terms of today's debate may have been set by our motion, but the climate in which it has been worded was entirely determined by the pledge made by the Labour party in the run-up to the general election. Labour promised to reduce waiting lists, which has caused us to draw to the attention of the House the way in which that pledge has been betrayed.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has covered—rumbustiously, as always—most of the arguments that I want to make, none of which, needless to say, was answered by the Secretary of State. First and foremost is the spending climate in which he pretends that he is beginning to fulfil his pledge. The key point is that spending under this Government is less than it would have been had the Conservative party stayed in office.
The Secretary of State is unable to fulfil his pledge because, in his naivety, he has boxed himself in by making two conflicting pledges. On the one hand, he said, bogusly, that his Government would stick to former spending plans, but, on the other, he said that he would reduce waiting lists. Those conflicting pledges explain the predicament that he and his colleagues find themselves in. Worse, it has been announced today that inflation has hit 4.2 per cent., so his spending plans will be further eaten into by the Government's inability to stick to their economic targets.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) clearly knows her stuff—she spoke cogently, as ever, and the Government should listen to her. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) clearly does not—he has become an apologist for something that will not please his voters in South Yorkshire. I doubt that he will honestly be able to hold his head high in the streets of Rother Valley again.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke a lot of sense. In discussing the deceit of this so-called early pledge, he joined us in pointing out the truth which Labour Members are not prepared to admit. The hon. Member for Harrow,

West (Mr. Thomas) read his brief—he dwelt on the past, but seemed to have little vision of how his party will honour its pledge. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), as one would expect of a former Health Minister, brought expertise to the debate, helping us to understand the detail of waiting times and the importance of times rather than lists.
The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) spoke as the House has come to expect of her. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) made a fluent and thoughtful contribution, which I trust Ministers will have noted. The hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) seemed reluctant to address the Government's failure. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) was, as always, clear and to the point. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) addressed the House with some gall. I wonder whether he campaigned on the Kidderminster hospital in the run-up to the general election. He is becoming an apologist for the reduction in services. Where does he stand with the voters now?

Miss Melanie Johnson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Duncan: I shall not give way, because we are restricted on time.
The pledge on the health service—

Mr. Andy King: Does the hon. Gentleman use the health service?

Mr. Duncan: The hon. Gentleman has been barracking throughout the debate. The answer to his question is yes.
Given the Government's early pledge, 100,000 people should have been knocked off the waiting lists. Instead, they have gone up by 150,000. The Secretary of State and his chummy Minister are falling behind on their promise to the extent of almost a quarter of a million. To secure their fortunes and to recover from this panic—

Miss Johnson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Duncan: I shall not give way.
Will the Secretary of State give a guarantee—which he failed to give the House when I asked him a week ago—that no other area of health provision will be pushed in the wrong direction to get the Government out of the hole they are in on their pledge? I see that the Minister is nodding. Let him put that on the record when he replies to the debate. Will he assure us that no other national health service indicator of performance will be pushed in the wrong direction to get the Minister and his team out of the hole that they have so deeply dug for themselves?

Miss Johnson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Duncan: I have told the hon. Lady, and I shall not tell her again: I shall not give way, because we restricted on time. [Interruption.] If the hon. Lady had been here throughout the debate, I might have given way to her.
The White Paper reforms are likely to make the Minister's problems worse. He should listen to what doctors say about primary care groups. They are being


compelled to form groups of 60 or 80 doctors covering about 100,000 patients. According to a recent poll by the British Medical Association, that is against the will of an absolute majority of practising GPs. We intend to listen to doctors, and it is time the Minister did so, too. What he proposes to do with GPs and with primary care groups will make matters worse.

Mr. Barron: The hon. Member says that the position of primary care groups will make matters worse. How can he defend the fundholding system, which only 50 per cent. of doctors were eventually cajoled into? It created a two-tier system of health care.

Mr. Duncan: If the Government are concerned about a two-tier system, they should endeavour to level up, not level down. It is typical of the Labour party and the socialist philosophy always to prefer to level down rather than to level up.
What is the point of an early pledge if it is continually postponed?

Miss Melanie Johnson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Duncan: I have made myself clear.
What did the Secretary of State mean by "early"? He chooses to talk to his Minister in an attempt to ignore me. What was "early" about his pledge? The Government promised that they would bring down waiting lists as a first step, but it is becoming a bit of a last step. What does the Minister mean by "early"? Early in the morning, just as the sun is setting? [HON. MEMBERS: "Rising."] Morning has broken, blackbirds gone to bed? When the Minister replies, he should tell the House what he meant by "early".

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. In the county of Leicestershire, waiting lists under Leicester health authority have gone up by 15 per cent. In two years—which will be "early"—they will be just the same as they were when we left office.

Mr. Duncan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Nowhere in the country has the early pledge been fulfilled.

Miss Johnson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Duncan: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made it quite clear that he will not give way.

Mr. Duncan: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In answer to a question from, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), the Prime Minister said that waiting lists will begin to fall by the end of this year.

Mr. Tony McNulty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Duncan: No, I am running out of time.
We shall examine the figures on 1 January 1999 to see whether the Government's delayed fulfilment of this pledge will begin to happen. [Interruption.] The Minister is laughing. The only reason he is laughing is that he hopes that he will get out of this Department so that he does not have to pick up the pieces. I hope that the Prime Minister did not give him an early pledge that he would be promoted.
I look at the faces across the Chamber, and I wonder whether there is anyone left in the Labour party who is prepared to exercise his conscience. In due course, the Labour party will divide into old rebels and new robots. At least the old rebels have come into politics with an opinion, but they so despise their Prime Minister that it will take only a short time before they break ranks. The new robots, who have no idea why they are here, must look at their bleepers to know what they have to do. If there is a conscience left among Labour Members, some of them at least should join us in the Lobby tonight.
The Prime Minister's credibility is most at stake. He is not here: he never is. He spoke in almost Messianic terms: he talked about making a vow, making a pledge, making a covenant with the people, making a promise. He spoke like the Messiah, as if delivering a message from the mountain top. He promised a better health service. Where is he? He is never here. What would he say if he were here?

Mr. Bruce Grocott: He would say, "This is rubbish."[Laughter.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to be heard.

Mr. Duncan: And I will be. Labour Members do not like hearing about what they will have to admit to their constituents. No manner of diversion will distract us from the fact that the Government have broken their pledge.
If the Prime Minister were here, he would say, "Suffer unto me little children, and I will make you wait. Come unto me all of you who are ill, and I will make you queue. Come unto me all who are old and ill, and I will make you go to the back of the line." This is a cruel betrayal of people who expected better. They were deceived, because they were led to believe that, as an early pledge, waiting lists would be brought down. If hon. Members have a conscience, they will vote with us tonight.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I hope that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) feels better for that. It is always better to get things off one's chest. Just a fortnight ago, when the hon. Gentleman made his debut at the Dispatch Box, he promised that the Conservative health team would be mature and constructive in debate-I think those were the words the hon. Gentleman used. I know that this debate is about waiting, but we are still waiting for that to happen. Thankfully, my hon. Friends have supplied the maturity and reflection that have been so sadly lacking from Conservative Members.


As the subject of waiting lists has inevitably dominated the debate, I should make it clear at the outset that those who say that waiting lists do not matter—such as the hon. Members for Orpington (Mr. Horam), for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—have got it wrong, for two reasons. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) kindly quoted from an article that I wrote in the Health Service Journal, in which I repeated what I had said on previous occasions: the longest average waiting times for treatment are for operations such as cataract and hip replacement operations.
As my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) and for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) said, people who have to wait a long time for treatment have their lives put on hold.

Mr. Simon Hughes: That is because of waiting times.

Mr. Milburn: Cutting waiting lists will cut waiting times. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, the Tory Front-Bench team and the hon. Member for Southend, West have not grasped that essential point.
We have already made progress on cutting waiting times, and we will continue to do so—especially for patients who are waiting for urgently needed cancer treatment. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, and, indeed, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), raised the case of a boy who apparently waited 19 months for treatment. I wish that the right hon. Lady had checked the facts before coming to the Dispatch Box.
As our amendment rightly points out, on 31 March no patients were waiting more than 18 months for treatment, and that includes the boy who was mentioned. He will have an operation within the next few days, as the NHS trust had always planned. Had the right hon. Lady raised the matter sensibly with the Department, rather than trying, and failing, to make political capital out of it, we would have sorted it out immediately.

Mr. Duncan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Milburn: In a moment.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked me to tell hon. Members on both sides of the House that, if there are any other such cases, we will gladly deal with them personally. When we say that we will cut the number of 18-month waiters, we mean it.

Mr. Duncan: Will the Minister confirm that the NHS is commissioning operations in private hospitals in order to bring down waiting lists?

Mr. Milburn: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the NHS has been doing that for years. What is new is that this Government have instructed health authority and other commissioners always to use NHS capacity first, if it is there.
There is a second reason why cutting waiting lists is important. The hon. Gentleman did not refer to that part of my article. The longer waiting lists are, the more people question the ability of the NHS to cope. It is no coincidence that, if hon. Members drive only a few

hundred yards, they will see enormous posters advertising the wares of private health insurance companies. Those companies recruit on the basis of one simple fact: waiting for treatment. Long waiting lists are the recruiting sergeant of private medicine.
That may not matter to those on the Tory Front Bench, but I can tell the House that it matters to the millions of people who have to use the NHS day in, day out, and who want it to continue as a universal service funded from general taxation.

Dr. Harris: Waiting lists can be cut if operations are not offered. If the private health sector recruits by means of longer waiting lists, why is it recruiting through health authorities that no longer offer operations for uncomplicated varicose veins or for infertility after nought, one, two or three cycles? The Minister should think carefully about whether there is now a universal service for some of these so-called non-urgent procedures.

Mr. Milburn: The difference between my party and the hon. Gentleman's is that we want a universal health service that provides fair access to high-quality treatment in all parts of the country. I hope that, when we announce our proposals for improving quality and fair access—as we shortly will—the hon. Gentleman and his party will welcome them.
Cutting waiting lists will be the single most important way of rebuilding public confidence in the NHS after all the damage done to it by Tory Governments. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), we will get waiting lists down by both investing and modernising. The two go together.
We have earmarked an extra £500 million so that waiting lists will be lower in April next year than the record level we inherited from April last year. The cash will pay for extra operations, extra staff and extra beds, and will mean the biggest annual increase in the number of hospital operations that the NHS has ever seen—as my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) said—as well as an extra 3,000 hospital beds across the country. That includes 450 in this city, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) pointed out.
This morning, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton issued a press release. I am afraid that he is rather prone to that. It demanded that we publish a full list of extra beds and extra activity. That list has been published. Let me ease the hon. Gentleman's doubts by telling him about some of the extra investment that is taking place—

Mr. Duncan: rose—

Mr. Milburn: I will give way in. a moment. First, I want to soothe the hon. Gentleman's fears and ease his suspicions. I want to bring him on side. He asked for the information this morning.
In Leicestershire, an extra £4.8 million will be provided. It will pay for an extra 30 beds; it will also pay for an extra 250 plastic surgery treatments, an extra 407 ear, nose and throat treatments, an additional consultant, 1,300 gastro-enterology treatments, two paediatric consultants and 150 extra paediatric treatments, additional staff for 200 extra ophthalmology treatments, one oral surgeon, 143 extra oral surgery treatments, one orthopaedic surgeon, 1,171 extra orthopaedic treatments,


extra staff for general surgery and anaesthetic, Saturday opening at Leicester hospital, and 1,568 extra general surgery treatments.

Mr. Duncan: Will the Minister answer a question that he has not answered so far today? Are those 2,000 new beds the same 2,000 beds that the Secretary of State announced on 2 June?

Mr. Hugh Bayley: They are the beds that the hon. Gentleman's Government closed.

Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend has given the hon. Gentleman the answer. It is a terrible shame that he did not take the opportunity to be grateful on behalf of his constituents when it was offered.
Investing, however, is only part of the story. We are modernising the whole waiting list system. Unlike the Tories, who also launched waiting list initiatives, we recognise that getting waiting lists down and keeping them down needs more than just extra operations in hospitals.
The hon. Gentleman asked me for an assurance that no other sector of health care would suffer as a consequence of our getting NHS waiting lists down. I will give him that assurance, and I will also tell him that the Government will invest an extra £65 million to ensure that there are improvements in community, primary care and mental health services.
Those are all essential steps towards modernising the NHS. This Government were elected on the basis of a pledge not just to save the NHS, but to modernise it. We never said that it would be easy—we always said it would take time—but deliver the goods we will. We are a Government who keep the promises we make. Moreover, we are a Government who are not frightened of taking responsibility. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took responsibility for rising waiting lists, he did something that no Tory Secretary of State for Health had ever done: he had the guts to take the blame. Tory Secretaries of State for Health always passed the buck; they always found an alibi; they always searched for an excuse. They never had the courage to take responsibility for their decisions.
This morning, the hon. Gentleman said on the radio that cutting waiting lists was the yardstick by which the Government's honesty would be judged. He is not right about much, but he is right about that. When we get those waiting lists down—as we will—the hon. Gentleman, too, will have to take responsibility, and admit that the Tories were wrong. He will have to admit that a Labour Government will have achieved something that a Tory Government never managed to achieve: getting waiting lists down, and enabling them to keep going down year after year after year.
Let us not forget that, for 18 years, the Tories put up waiting lists year after year after year. There were 400,000 more people waiting for hospital treatment at the end of their term of office than at the beginning. By the end of this Parliament, waiting lists will be at least 100,000 lower than the waiting lists that we inherited.
Given the Tories' record, I should have thought that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald would do well to heed the advice of her predecessor, the third shadow Health Secretary our health team has faced. He advised the Tories that the best policy for them was zero coverage. Tonight, we have learnt that the Tories cannot listen even to their own advice. After three hours of debate, no one is any the wiser about where they stand. Do they welcome our efforts to cut waiting lists? Do they welcome the extra cash? Do they want more cash for the NHS, which we do, or do they believe, like the shadow Chancellor, that the Government's plans for extra investment are a waste of public money?
The truth is that the Tories have no policies, they have no ideas, and they are out of touch with the 1 million people who work in the health service and the millions more who use it. They do not have even a credible position in opposition. Fifty years after opposing the very creation of the NHS, they are opposing its modernisation. They deserve to be rejected now, just as they were rejected then. I urge my hon. Friends to do just that.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 133, Noes 327.

Division No. 304]
[7 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Amess, David
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Arbuthnot, James
Fox, Dr Liam


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Fraser, Christopher


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gale, Roger


Baldry, Tony
Garnier, Edward


Bercow, John
Gibb, Nick


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gill, Christopher


Blunt, Crispin
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Body, Sir Richard
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boswell, Tim
Gray, James


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Green, Damian


Brady, Graham
Greenway, John


Brazier, Julian
Grieve, Dominic


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hague, Rt Hon William


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hammond, Philip


Burns, Simon
Hawkins, Nick


Butterfill, John
Hayes, John


Cash, William
Heald, Oliver


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


(Chipping Barnet)
Horam, John


Chope, Christopher
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Clappison, James
Hunter, Andrew


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Jenkin, Bernard


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Johnson Smith,


(Rushcliffe)
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Key, Robert


Collins, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Colvin, Michael
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Cran, James
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Curry, Rt Hon David
Lansley, Andrew


Day, Stephen
Leigh, Edward


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Letwin, Oliver


Duncan, Alan
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Lidington, David


Evans, Nigel
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Faber, David
Loughton, Tim


Fabricant, Michael
MacKay, Andrew


Fallon, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Flight, Howard
Major, Rt Hon John






Malins, Humfrey
Spring, Richard


Maples, John
Streeter, Gary


Mates, Michael
Swayne, Desmond


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Tapsell, Sir Peter


May, Mrs Theresa
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Norman, Archie
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Ottaway, Richard
Townend, John


Page, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Paice, James
Trend, Michael


Paterson, Owen
Tyrie, Andrew


Pickles, Eric
Viggers, Peter


Prior, David
Wardle, Charles


Randall, John
Waterson, Nigel


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wells, Bowen


Robathan, Andrew
Whittingdale, John


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Willetts, David


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Ruffley, David
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Woodward, Shaun


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Yeo, Tim


Shepherd, Richard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)



Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Soames, Nicholas
Sir David Madel and


Spicer, Sir Michael
Mrs. Caroline Spelman.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cann, Jamie


Ainger, Nick
Casale, Roger


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Caton, Martin


Alexander, Douglas
Cawsey, Ian


Allan, Richard
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Allen, Graham
Chaytor, David


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Chidgey, David


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Chisholm, Malcolm


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Ashton, Joe
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Baker, Norman
Clelland, David


Ballard, Jackie
Clwyd, Ann


Banks, Tony
Coaker, Vernon


Barron, Kevin
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bayley, Hugh
Coleman, Iain


Beard, Nigel
Colman, Tony


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Connarty, Michael


Beith Rt Hon A J
Cooper, Yvette


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Corbett, Robin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bennett, Andrew F
Corston, Ms Jean


Best, Harold
Cousins, Jim


Betts, Clive
Cox, Tom


Blackman, Liz
Cranston, Ross


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Cummings, John


Borrow, David
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dalyell, Tam


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Brake, Tom
Darvill, Keith


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Davidson, Ian


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


(Dunfermline E)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Denham, John


Browne, Desmond
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Buck, Ms Karen
Dismore, Andrew


Burden, Richard
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Burgon, Colin
Donohoe, Brian H


Burnett, John
Doran, Frank


Butler, Mrs Christine
Dowd, Jim


Byers, Stephen
Drew, David


Caborn, Richard
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Edwards, Huw


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fatchett, Derek


Canavan, Dennis
Fearn, Ronnie





Field, Rt Hon Frank
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Kingham, Ms Tess


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Flynn, Paul
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Follett, Barbara
Leslie, Christopher


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Levitt, Tom


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Linton, Martin


Fyfe, Maria
Livingstone, Ken


Galbraith, Sam
Livsey, Richard


Galloway, George
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gapes, Mike
Lock, David


Gardiner, Barry
Love, Andrew


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McAllion, John


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McAvoy, Thomas


Gerrard, Neil
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gibson, Dr Ian
Macdonald, Calum


Godsiff, Roger
McDonnell, John


Goggins, Paul
McFall, John


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gorrie, Donald
McIsaac, Shona


Grant, Bernie
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McLeish, Henry


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Grocott, Bruce
McNamara, Kevin


Grogan, John
McNulty, Tony


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
MacShane, Denis


Hanson, David
Mactaggart, Fiona


Harris, Dr Evan
McWalter, Tony


Harvey, Nick
McWilliam, John


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Healey, John
Mallaber, Judy


Henderson, Doug (Newcasle N)
Mandelson, Peter


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hepburn, Stephen
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Heppell, John
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hesford, Stephen
Martlew, Eric


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Maxton, John


Hill, Keith
Meale, Alan


Hoey, Kate
Merron, Gillian


Home Robertson, John
Michael, Alun


Hoon, Geoffrey
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hope, Phil
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Milburn, Alan


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Mitchell, Austin


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Moffatt, Laura


Howells, Dr Kim
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hoyle, Lindsay
Moore, Michael


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Morley, Elliot


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hurst, Alan
Mudie, George


Hutton, John
Mullin, Chris


Iddon, Dr Brian
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Ingram, Adam
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


Jamieson, David
Norris, Dan


Jenkins, Brian
Oaten, Mark


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Johnson, Miss Melanie
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


(Welwyn Hatfield)
O'Hara, Eddie


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Olner, Bill


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Pendry, Tom


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Perham, Ms Linda


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pickthall, Colin


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pike, Peter L


Keetch, Paul
Plaskitt, James


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Pollard, Kerry


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pound, Stephen


Khabra, Piara S
Powell, Sir Raymond


Kilfoyle, Peter
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Primarolo, Dawn






Prosser, Gwyn
Stringer, Graham


Quin, Ms Joyce
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Radice, Giles
Stunell, Andrew


Raynsford, Nick
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
(Dewsbury)


Rendel, David
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Robertson, Rt Hon George
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


(Hamilton S)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Timms, Stephen


Rogers, Allan
Tipping, Paddy


Rooney, Terry
Todd, Mark


Roy, Frank
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Ruane, Chris
Touhig, Don


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Truswell, Paul


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Sanders, Adrian
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Sarwar, Mohammad
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Savidge, Malcolm
Tyler, Paul


Sawford, Phil
Vaz, Keith


Sedgemore, Brian
Wallace, James


Sheerman, Barry
Walley, Ms Joan


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Ward, Ms Claire


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wareing, Robert N


Skinner, Dennis
Watts, David


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Webb, Steve


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
White, Brian


Smith, Miss Geraldine
Whitehead, Dr Alan


(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
(Swansea W)


Snape, Peter
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Soley, Clive
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Southworth, Ms Helen
Willis, Phil


Spellar, John
Winnick, David


Squire, Ms Rachel
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Woolas, Phil


Steinberg, Gerry
Worthington, Tony


Stevenson, George
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wyatt, Derek


Stinchcombe, Paul
Tellers for the Noes:


Stott, Roger
Ms Bridget Prentice and


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Mr. Greg Pope

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House notes with pleasure the £2 billion increase in National Health Service spending since 1st May 1997; welcomes the allocation of £500 million to cut waiting lists by the end of this Parliament to 100,000 below the record levels inherited from the last Conservative Government; notes that as a result of record increases in waiting list surgery the National Health Service will be opening around 2,000 extra beds and keeping open around a further 1,000 in marked contrast to the cuts under the last Government; notes that by March 1998 no-one in England was waiting over 18 months for treatment, meaning that this Government has already achieved what the Conservative Government never achieved; and further welcomes the ending of two-tier care by the introduction of primary care groups which puts doctors and nurses in the driving seat of modernisation.

Local Government (Scotland)

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I advise the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Dr. Liam Fox: I beg to move,
That this House believes that Scotland requires financial stability and ethically sound local government; recognises the need for public confidence in advance of the establishment of the Scottish Parliament; and therefore calls on Her Majesty's Government to initiate an independent inquiry into the conduct of local government in Scotland.
It is fair to say at the beginning of this debate that, whatever twists, turns and controversies it may give rise to, it will provoke less anxiety than the one and a half hours that we had to sit through earlier today. If I had had a prescription pad close by me during the second half of the Scotland game, I could have made a fair bit on prescriptions for valium.
We have secured the debate to bring to the attention of the whole United Kingdom something that is well known in Scotland: the Labour party in parts of Scottish local government is rotten to the core. Council after council has thrown up tales of junkets, maladministration and financial deficit.
Why is it that a Prime Minister who seems to take such an interest in everywhere from Islington to Tuscany, and in everything from Britpop to Frank Sinatra, has so much to say on so many subjects but so little to say about the corrosive nature of politics in his own back yard? We hear plenty of comments on Oasis, but not on Ayrshire. He seems to want to deal with luvvies, but not with Lanarkshire. We seem to have a Prime Minister who wants to be leader of the Government without having to be leader of the Labour party.
We can give only a lukewarm welcome to the Secretary of State's investigation into direct labour organisations.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): Why?

Dr. Fox: Because it is inadequate and comes far too late. Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us when he, his officials or senior Labour party officials first became aware of the problems in North Lanarkshire. An editorial in today's Daily Record—which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree is hardly a Conservative newspaper—states that they knew a considerable time ago exactly what had happened in North Lanarkshire. I must confess, perhaps for the first time, that I agree that
nothing less than a full public inquiry rooting out all the unsavoury facts and naming all the names will do".
Many sections of the Scottish electorate plead for such an inquiry.

Mr. James Wallace: When did Conservative Members first realise that something was wrong with local government in Scotland? Many hon. Members recall arguing with Conservative Ministers that there should have been a full public and independent inquiry before they proceeded with reform of local government. Is not his plea for an inquiry coming a bit too late?

Dr. Fox: The list of wrongdoings that I shall give in the debate demonstrates not only that it is not too late for


an inquiry, but that we require an immediate and thorough investigation into events in Scottish local government. However, the problem is not DLOs themselves or the structure of local government, but the culture of Labour in local government. The Labour party cannot be the solution to the problem—it is the problem.
Although we can examine the structure of DLOs, the fact is that they are the creatures of whichever council they belong to. DLOs make contracts with the client part of the council and provide services. If they run up excessive bills, the client will simply provide more money. Such a practice certainly would not be accepted in the private sector. Nevertheless, such practices demonstrate the prevailing culture in specific councils.
As the Government were so desperate to end the compulsory element of compulsory competitive tendering, they gave us the nebulous concept of best value. Perhaps it would help the House if I gave some examples of the operation of that concept.
As part of best value in this year's housing maintenance contracts for the City of Edinburgh's council tax payers, tenders on an open-market basis were sought in only two areas. Tenders in other areas were "negotiated" with selected contractors, the largest of which was—surprise, surprise—Edinburgh Building Services. That "negotiation" led to an increase of approximately 14 per cent. over previous prices. That negotiated price increase allowed Edinburgh Building Services to make an unrealistically low tender of 67 per cent. in four tendered areas, effectively precluding all private sector bids from being considered. That reveals what best value means to the Labour party—best value for its friends in local government.

Ms Rachel Squire: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a prime example of a council failing to give best value to its council tax payers and of a council being guilty of gross mismanagement and overspending on various services was none other than Tory-controlled Westminster city council?

Dr. Fox: In so far as the wrongdoings of Westminster have been exposed, I of course criticise them, but the hon. Lady is not going to deflect the argument. We are talking about local government in Scotland. The Labour party is in government now, and it is time that it faced the problems caused by its mismanagement of local government in Scotland. It is time that it had the courage to start dealing with those problems. It is no good Labour Members throwing into the debate one council in England as they will no doubt do this evening—that is usually what happens when they attempt to defend their appalling record in local government in Scotland. Yes, I condemn wrongdoing in local government and shall do so at length this evening.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Fox: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
In the west of Scotland—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why will he not give way?

Dr. Fox: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I shall give way to hon. Members who are better mannered than him.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why will he not give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not for the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) to question why hon. Members do or do not give way.

Dr. Fox: I am keen to give way to Scottish Members who can defend what Labour is doing in local government.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. 1 am an English Member of Parliament. Will you confirm that the Opposition spokesman will not allow me to intervene because I do not represent a Scottish constituency, although he represents an English constituency, too?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall confirm what I have already told the hon. Gentleman. It is for the hon. Member who is on his feet to decide to whom he will or will not give way. That was not a point of order.

Dr. Fox: Perhaps I should have written one or two extra prescriptions for sedatives this afternoon.
If we are seeking problems in local government in Scotland, we need look no further than the west of Scotland. In North Lanarkshire, an internal auditor's report has unveiled a catalogue of financial incompetence leading to a £4.5 million debt being discovered. Included in the auditor's findings was the case of a plumber—it has been well documented in the newspapers—who received payments totalling £54,000 despite being on a basic salary of £10,600. It also found that £800,000 of stock had been written off. Council chiefs have confirmed that the police will be called in if further investigations show that the stock was not written off but stolen.
In the same council, a lollipop man has said that he earned £17,500 a year for 10 hours' work a week. Commenting on that, Mr. John Gillen said:
it was the best job I ever had … I couldn't believe my luck, during my stint as a lollipop man I took my wife and two kids to Gran Canaria, bought a new Escort and did up my flat.
It appears that the council tax payer will have to pick up the tab for Labour's mismanagement in North Lanarkshire.
The Minister who is winding up the debate—the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald)—has said that the North Lanarkshire deficit could be covered by a £50-a-head rise in the council tax in North Lanarkshire. That might be fine for those on the same salary as the Minister, but will not be much comfort to those who are finding it difficult to pay the already inflated council tax imposed under Labour. That comes on top of previous scandals that have afflicted the council.
In 1996, the Labour leader of North Lanarkshire council had his office decorated with wallpaper costing £271 a roll which, as the Lord Chancellor would say, you


don't get at B and Q. His carpet cost £51 per square metre, and he had a new bidet installed—very PC—as part of a £600,000 refurbishment of Motherwell civic centre. In addition, the same council has spent £700,000 on an exclusive car park for councillors.
Following the revelations in North Lanarkshire, amazingly, a shortfall of £3.5 million has been discovered in the DLO budget in East Ayrshire. East Ayrshire is also a very interesting council. There have been allegations of drunken junketing by Labour councillors. A council official, the deputy director of the commercial operations department, was threatened with the sack and challenged to a fight for refusing to buy councillors a drink on his expenses at a conference. The councillors concerned—James Carmichael and James O'Neill—were the vice-chairman and chairman of the commercial operations committee and effectively his political bosses. According to a report in The Herald, when the official concerned—Charles McIvor—refused to buy a drink, one East Ayrshire councillor said publicly:
Why the … do you think we bring officials to conferences?
I notice that there has not been the slightest challenge to the report in The Herald. The official's boss, Des Tierney, was then allegedly telephoned at home and told to order his subordinate to buy a drink for the councillors or his job would be on the line, too. The two officials have been suspended since February pending an internal inquiry into the running of the department, although it has emerged that they themselves were asking for an investigation as long ago as December last year.
Perhaps more serious are the calls for an investigation into the relationship between the council, Cumnock municipal bank and the Cumnock and Doon Minerals Trust. Councillors control the bank and act as directors. Four of the same group act as trustees of the minerals trust, which was set up to improve leisure facilities in the Cumnock and Doon valley area affected by mineral operations. There is a clear conflict of interest, with councillors sitting on planning committees determining applications from opencast coal developers who contribute to the trust which invests in the bank which in turn gives loans to the council that it serves.

Mr. Desmond Browne: If the hon. Gentleman's research for his speech had gone slightly further than press reports, he would have realised that East Ayrshire council instigated an investigation into the financial management of the DLO in November. It is hardly surprising that a response to a request by Mr. Tierney in December was of little consequence.

Dr. Fox: The exact timing of an investigation is not the point. The point is the culture that exists within that council, which is obviously permeating all levels of management in the council and blurring the distinction between the duties of councillors and the duties of officials of the council.
Perhaps the best-publicised recent example has been that of Glasgow. Glasgow city council has for years been rocked by allegations of Labour councillors trading votes for trips and of bitter factionalism between the Labour power groups. The votes-for-trips allegations spurred the Labour party into action that was billed as

one of the many attempts to clean up the city. Scottish newspapers were full of stories about sleazebusters coming in to clean it up and about hit squads but, of course, nothing ever seems to happen. Like many other investigations, this one showed that the Labour party's actions failed to live up to its rhetoric.
The Labour party in Scotland confidently predicted that the very public suspension of and disciplinary procedures begun against its councillors in Glasgow would be an example to elected representatives everywhere, but today disciplinary action remains completely stalled in legal uncertainty. However, those are by no means the only problems facing Labour in Glasgow.
In February 1998, it was revealed that David Moxham, a Glasgow city councillor, owed £3,748 in unpaid council tax dating back to 1993. Because of those arrears, he is legally barred from voting on any financial matter. The council and the Scottish Labour party have constantly argued about who is responsible for any disciplinary hearing. The Scotsman revealed on 25 November that another Glasgow Labour councillor and her husband who are at the centre of a political storm had moved into a £55,000 private home after leaving behind rent arrears of nearly £1,300 on a council flat, while raking in almost £40,000 of public money in the form of council allowances and urban aid-funded jobs. What is going on? Where is the discipline? Where is the clean-up that was promised time and again?
Furthermore, the stories of Glasgow's wasteful expenditure are legendary. In 1997, when Glasgow was cutting key public services, it managed to find the funds to send some councillors on the following foreign trips: Rostov-on-Don for the Rostov city days event; St. Petersburg for a symposium on cultural policy in Europe; Rome for an international rose exhibition; and Hong Kong for a meeting of the International Badminton Federation. I am sure that all those trips were welcome for those involved, but difficult for a party that was having to cut essential public services. The council also found £810,000 in the same year to run its fleet of 28 luxury cars. Something is rotten there and it is time that we got to the bottom of it.
Renfrewshire demonstrates par excellence why Labour cannot be trusted in local government in Scotland. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition pointed out at Prime Minister's Question Time recently, a senior police officer has said that if that council's chamber were a pub, it would have to be closed down for public order offences, so often have the police had to be called.

Mr. Michael Connarty: Will the hon. Gentleman go further and tell the truth? Every time that the police have been called, it has been to eject the Scottish National party members, who parade on the top of the tables, abuse council officials and disrupt proceedings until they are thrown out by the police. The problem is caused not by the Labour party, but by the SNP.

Dr. Fox: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for lobbing a grenade into the debate, which will no doubt go off later. It is a strange defence to say that there is a party that behaves even worse than Labour in local government. It is hardly a defence for Labour's conduct in that council.
The most serious issue in Renfrewshire is the Ferguslie Community Business security company, about which many questions remain unanswered. I hope that the


Secretary of State will tell us some facts about it. The report in The Daily Telegraph of 16 August last year—which was not challenged—says that more than £320,000 is believed to have disappeared from two of the firms in the now defunct FCB, which, as most hon. Members know, was allegedly used to launder drug money. Some £321,500 was supposed to have been used to pay casual workers who apparently never existed, according to a leaked report by the FCB's liquidator, Colin Hastings. Are there ghost workers in Paisley, or is there something more sinister?
The FCB security company was set up in 1987 with almost £200,000 of public money from the Scottish Office, the former Strathclyde region and Renfrewshire district council. It is well known that local Labour activists were heavily involved in the company. We have never got to the bottom of what went wrong with the FCB. It is a serious matter that would not have been brought to public attention without the courageous stand taken by the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams), who is not in her place at the moment. We all applaud her courage.
Is it not slightly—no, perhaps I am being cynical and should not say it. Is it not surprising that on the day that the Government are dragged kicking and screaming to the House to give an account of their stewardship of Scottish local government, we finally hear the decision on the suspension of the hon. Member for Renfrew—the hon. Member for Greenock? Perhaps we shall be told the truth. The Labour party has taken 10 months, with two investigations carried out by two different teams, to come to today's stunning conclusion that there should be another Labour party inquiry.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) is often in his place in front of me and certainly has not been suspended for 10 months.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Dr. Fox: I am grateful for the opportunity to check the constituency of the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Mr. Graham).
When will we be told the truth about the issue?

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I correct in believing that it is usual that if one hon. Member is going to attack another by name, they should inform him beforehand? Has the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) done so?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is normal in the House if one hon. Member is going to mention another hon. Member that he informs him beforehand.

Dr. Fox: I accept that I should have written to the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire. If he is ever available in the House to pick up his mail, I am sure that he will get that letter.
The debate is important, because local government will play a central role in the new constitutional relationship in Scotland. If Labour fails to take clear, decisive and public action, Scottish voters will assume that Labour in

a Scottish Parliament will merely be an extension of Labour's rotten boroughs in local government in the west of Scotland. The Secretary of State must take all the necessary action, not just some of it. The Prime Minister must take responsibility for his party. Sadly, the Secretary of State responds too lamely and too late. The Labour party treats Scotland as its private fiefdom and the Prime Minister treats the Scottish Labour party with disdain, putting as much space as possible between him and it. We need no more words, no more promises and no more time wasting. Labour is the problem, so Labour cannot be the solution. Someone must clean up the act and Scotland will demand that that starts tonight.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
notes with concern losses in a number of direct labour organisations within Scottish councils; and commends the swift action taken by the Secretary of State for Scotland to deal with them.
I must start by congratulating the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox)—I shall not say reluctantly, because that would be discourteous to him and to the House—not on his speech, but on his appointment to the Front Bench. We can all safely assume that he is the first representative of Woodspring to hold the position of Opposition chief spokesman on Scottish affairs. I am afraid that I am coming to the conclusion that the view from Woodspring is a little distorted. There may be a plea of mitigation, given the distance, but the situation is unfortunate.
The hon. Gentleman has obviously read a lot of newspapers. I am not complaining about that—Opposition spokesmen read newspapers. However, when making such serious charges, it is important that he should go beyond press cuttings. He referred to legendary stories. Some of the stories that he mentioned are legendary-they are not well founded in reality. I accept that the Opposition will make what political points they can, but, having read his charge sheet, I am disappointed at the lack of a single constructive suggestion. He did not discuss the future of local government or consider the realities of any of the problems. I regret that, because I would have been interested in something more than simple political knockabout.
I accept that serious issues have arisen recently. The debate should be taken seriously by all those participating and spectating. For good reasons, I cannot comment on the security company in Ferguslie Park. The hon. Gentleman must know that the issue has properly been in the hands of the police for some time for investigation. We do not know the outcome of the investigation, and it would be improper of me to speculate, but I assure him that the proper authorities will act if evidence of wrongdoing emerges from the inquiry.
What matters in local government is what works. I accept that there is clear evidence of some difficulties in local government in Scotland. Those difficulties must be addressed. The Government will not tolerate failure and inefficiency in local government, and will act swiftly—as we have done—to deal with such cases. There is a need for change in Scottish local government. I want to say something a little more constructive about that later. We have acted, and will act, on impropriety and the falling away of proper standards, as well as on the agenda for change.


The only precise question that the hon. Gentleman asked was when I first knew about the difficulties in North Lanarkshire. It was on 27 May. If he follows the chronology carefully from there, he will see that we have acted with speed and decision. If there have been any longueurs, it is because of the strictures of statute.
We have proceeded under the provisions of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and the Local Government Act 1988. First we had to tell the East Ayrshire and North Lanarkshire councils that they had a specified period—in this case three weeks—in which to offer an explanation and give full information about their direct labour organisations. That was done. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, when we have that and the other information that we require, we shall take what we regard as suitable and–1 hope—appropriate action.

Dr. Fox: Will the Secretary of State further clarify the matter? The management services officer, Alex Haggerty, said, as the right hon. Gentleman will be well aware, that the council knew of problems concerning losses in the DLO in March 1997. When did the Scottish Office first become aware of that?

Mr. Dewar: I first became aware of Mr. Haggerty's report—I am neither accepting nor rejecting it—when I came across it in a daily newspaper this morning. To the best of my knowledge, we in the Department did not have access to the document. I have already told the hon. Gentleman—I hope that he will take this from me as fact—that my first intimation of the difficulties was on 27 May. Indeed, a very senior civil servant to whom I turned learned about it from me. We have certainly not been sitting on information about the activities of DLOs and refusing to act on it.

Mr. Alex Salmond: The precise suggestion in Mr. Haggerty's report, which is published in today's Daily Record and which I have read, is that four Labour councillors had known for some time of the situation concerning the North Lanarkshire DLO. If that suggestion proves to be correct, how will those four councillors stand vis-a-vis disciplinary action in the Labour party?

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait and see, as I will. I do not know who the four councillors are; none of them was referred to by name. I have not at this stage had any evidence about the contents of the report.
I do not at this stage know very much about Mr. Haggerty, except that he has left the employment of the council. I rely for that information on the press cuttings to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It is not helpful to build great theories, or to speculate on such reports. Obviously, I intend to try to find out about the situation, and we shall take appropriate steps in order to do so. I was replying to the specific question of the hon. Member for Woodspring, who I hope accepts my reply.

Mr. Wallace: There has been some speculation, and it would be helpful if the Secretary of State could clarify matters. I have been led to believe that the post of chief management accountant in North Lanarkshire was created

last year following expressions of concern by officials about the accounting system in the department that is now giving rise to concern. Does the Secretary of State know whether that is so? If it is, does it not suggest that councillors should have monitored what was happening?

Mr. Dewar: I am not in a position to answer such detailed questions at this stage. We have taken steps to establish the facts, which I shall explain in a moment. Perhaps we can take the matter forward on that basis.
I stress to the House that North Lanarkshire and East Ayrshire are two out of 32 authorities; there are 30 other authorities with DLOs. We have, of course, been trying to check the position in order to establish the extent of the damage and the problem. Other DLOs have deficits either on part of their operations or overall, but the distinction is that none of them is unknown. They have all been established for a purpose—for the management of funds—and are, to that degree, under control.
One can argue about tactics, but there is a sharp distinction between that and what appears to have happened at the two councils at the centre of the storm, where undoubtedly matters ran out of control. On the face of it, there was a collapse of financial discipline, and a quite substantial failure of management systems.
In North Lanarkshire, it looks as though the deficit is about £4.2 million. The provisional figure in East Ayrshire is £3.5 million. Even though there are variations on the figures, they give some idea of the scale of the problem. In both cases, there have obviously been very serious failures of management and financial control. As the House will know, DLOs are required, very properly, to meet a 6 per cent. return on the capital they employ. It is deeply worrying that deficits in these two cases were not detected or monitored at an early stage. Both became fully evident only after the end of the financial year in question.
My first and immediate reaction in both cases was to ensure that the councils called in their external auditors to verify financial figures and try to establish the position. As I have said, I also used my statutory powers to require information and explanation of the councils. That is a necessary step, which I stress is to pave the way for further action. I shall return later to what further action I may take.
On the face of it—I will not conceal this—there has been an unacceptable and intolerable level of failure and mismanagement in the two councils. It is indefensible; no one on the Labour Benches, or indeed in local government, is attempting to defend it. It raises three important questions: first, what is to be done about the cases; secondly, what is to be done to avoid repetition; thirdly, what broader lessons can be learned about the future of DLOs and, indeed, of local government as a whole, especially as we begin to consider the relationship between local government and the Scottish Parliament that will come into being in the middle of next year?
I have already initiated the statutory process. I expect a response from the councils later this month. It is already painfully clear that the contracts under which the DLOs have made such losses cannot be allowed to continue. The councils concerned have already acknowledged that, at the minimum, the work will have to be re-tendered. I am not yet convinced that that is enough. The question clearly arises whether the organisations can deliver a proper


service in a controlled way without an unacceptable impact on the council tax payer. Before making up my mind finally on that, I will want to hear what the councils themselves have to say. We are waiting for that information.
I want to make it clear today that I am perfectly prepared to use my powers to require the council, if necessary, to wind up the DLO and obtain services from the private sector in either or both of the cases. I intend to come to an early conclusion after I have considered the information provided by East Ayrshire and North Lanarkshire councils.
I want the reassurance that we do not have similar breakdowns in management and control elsewhere. My Department has already approached every DLO; we have asked that external auditors be brought in. The Scottish Office has written to every council in Scotland asking them to check the operation of their bonus systems in direct works departments, and to report back. It appears—at least on the face of press reports-that something went very far wrong with the bonus system in North Lanarkshire particularly. I have certainly no wish to see any repeat of the bizarre anomalies that seem to have emerged in that council, which have been so widely noticed in the press.

Dr. Fox: Leaving aside the two DLOs in question, does the Secretary of State draw a conclusion about the whole system of DLOs from the fact that a more direct relationship with the private sector may be the answer? Will he organise an investigation into how they operate in their entirety?

Mr. Dewar: I certainly said—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was listening—that lessons would have to be learned in local government in a wider sense. I shall come to that later.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Although the Secretary of State is understandably dwelling on the downside, does he acknowledge that there are well-managed, well-run direct service organisations, such as that in SNP-controlled Angus, which produced a surplus of £250,000 last year while providing top-quality public services at low cost?

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman can always be relied on to paddle his own canoe—or perhaps his own coracle—in such matters. I do not want to comment on individual councils that are not at the centre of the matter with which we are concerned; we might get into some difficulties. The hon. Gentleman is making a party point. He could consider the DLO in Perth and Kinross, for example, where he might find a rather different situation.

Mr. Welsh: I ask the Secretary of State not to destroy the whole system, but to accept that, where it works well, it does so in the public interest. Bringing in the example of Perth and Kinross is rather pathetic, since it had £1.1 million in reserves and has produced a surplus elsewhere in its accounts. That does not compare with the real problems on Labour councils, on which he has dwelt. That is where the difficulty lies. Well-run and efficient DLOs should not be wiped out.

Mr. Dewar: We are not talking about wiping out anyone. I have no wish to go into this, but I understand

that Perth and Kinross faces a deficit of £450,000 in respect of its DLO and services. I do not make too much of that, but if we are talking about perfection in every respect, 1 mention it as a corrective.

Mr. Welsh: indicated dissent.

Mr. Dewar: Perhaps we can agree to disagree, on that as on so many other things.
We have brought the external auditors in, and will closely examine their results. We want final conclusions by September. We have asked the Accounts Commission for Scotland, an important safeguard that is totally independent, to conduct a rather different sort of audit starting in July. It has been asked to examine the financial and management control systems of every DLO in Scotland. It will be an important report.
That may help answer the point that the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) made by implication. The commission has the power not only to investigate but to comment on fault and on where the problems arise, and, if necessary, to hold public hearings on the matter. Not only that, but it can make recommendations and findings that come to the Secretary of State, which might include recommendations for personal penalties. I do not anticipate that, or make any assumptions. The House can see that we have brought to bear a battery of inquiry and expertise to try to establish exactly what happened and why.
In answer to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh), I accept that the two councils are, to the best of our present knowledge, alone in respect of the scale of the problem and the background to it—the loss of control that appears to have occurred. I say this with proper caution, because we have not definitively covered every angle, but we think that it is unlikely that there are any more cases. That does not detract from the seriousness of what happened. The breakdown of financial controls inside the two councils was especially worrying, because it allowed the deficit to accumulate unnoticed. I want to be sure that that is not happening elsewhere.

Mr. John Hayes: Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that this is an issue of culture, not structure? That was the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). Is there a distinctive, undesirable Labour local government culture in Scotland?

Mr. Dewar: I do not suppose that there is any sort of Tory local government culture in Scotland. If there is, it is being carefully retained in a test tube while the antidote is produced.
I accept that there are a wide range of councils in Scotland, very different in character, scale and size. There are many different councillors, who range, no doubt, in ability and character, but the vast majority try hard to deliver good services. Across the board, they succeed in doing so, by and large. They would be as distressed as I am by the fact that the two councils in deep trouble raise questions about the integrity and competence of other councils.
It is important to ask whether, for example, it is right that the council tax payer should continue to bear the risk of failures of this sort. If something goes wrong, the risk


falls on the services provided by the council and on the council tax payer. It is legitimate to ask whether providing such services directly is the right way for councils to secure for their communities the provision that they deserve. I think that it can be, but I agree that there is a cultural problem.
In the days of compulsory competitive tendering, with its rigid structures, which were ill suited and which failed, people in some areas became convinced that they should keep work in-house if they possibly could. There have been cases in which people have signed up for tendering, but without having their heart in delivering the results that tendering should produce: the best possible deal for the council tax payer, and, most important, for the person who depends on council services.
In considering the introduction of best value systems, it is important that councils understand, and act on the basis, that the tendering process must not be weighted in any way, and that it should be a fair test of the market and the best way of producing the services that the users require. It is vital that we get that established, and that it happens in practice.

Mr. Salmond: The Secretary of State's point is fair, but does he accept that it can be greatly in the public interest to have effective direct service organisations and DLOs, because they can provide the cutting edge of competition in those areas? In most councils, such organisations work efficiently. The problem of management and uncontrolled expenditure in the two authorities should not be used to condemn the many councils where such organisations work carefully and appropriately.

Mr. Dewar: I have already said that, in many areas, the service provided is good and delivery is up to standard. I have also said that, where there have been difficulties, we must get to grips with them and eliminate them. It would be as wrong to say that there should be no in-house services as to say that there must be in-house services and nothing else. It is a matter of balance and judgment.
I am facing up to an unpleasant truth. There has been a tendency in some parts of the local government world, for perhaps understandable reasons, to be so keen to keep work in-house that we have sacrificed efficiency and not delivered services as effectively as we should have. That is what the best value regime is intended to put right.

Mr. David Marshall: My right hon. Friend said that services may not have been delivered as well as they could have been. After 17 years of continual cuts by the previous Government, local government was reorganised two years ago. It was a shabby, gerrymandered, ill-conceived, politically spiteful and politically motivated reorganisation.
Was not the problem that all the new councils and councillors, regardless of party, had to face the serious underfunding by the previous Government of all the essential costs of reorganisation? They put in some £36 million when an independent report by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy stated categorically that reorganisation was underfunded

by more than £200 million. How can we have perfection, with such underfunding caused by the activities of the previous Government?

Mr. Dewar: My hon. Friend put his point passionately. I have much sympathy with the difficulties of local government. No one has denied them. We must get the right balance and framework in which services can be efficiently delivered. Best value, on which we have worked closely with COSLA, seems to offer that opportunity. If it is to be taken, we must deal with some of the difficulties that have arisen and that have dramatically struck down the management and financial control system in two important local government areas.
I agree that compulsory competitive tendering did not work, because it was based solely on compulsion. I agree that it encouraged the creation of an evasion industry. That is why we have abandoned it, and asked local authorities to sign up to the best value regime and implement it willingly and with full co-operation. That is the road that we still intend to travel.
However, part of that process is a tendering procedure—testing the market in the interests of ensuring that we are delivering services effectively. I am sure that I carry most of my hon. Friends with me when I say that we must adopt a straightforward, uncomplicated approach to get the best tender for the services, and, if they are in-house, to ensure that they are delivered efficiently and effectively as advertised. Apparently that has not happened in Ayrshire and Lanarkshire, and I regret that.
I make it clear that we must now move forward and examine the whole basis on which local government now operates. The House will know that the public perception of the many able and dedicated people in local government is often undermined by the few who fall short of the standards that are expected of them. There is no doubt about that, and local government deserves better.
As the House will know, we have suggested a new ethical framework for local government, to rebuild public confidence in its probity. Especially important in that respect is a clearer national code of local government conduct for Scotland, and a new national standards commission for Scotland with powers to investigate and to come to conclusions about the validity or otherwise of complaints that may be made about councillors or officials thought by some to have fallen short of the required standard.
The commission will have the power to take decisions, and I hope that, when it is in place, it will approach the task with impartiality and consistency. I hope that that will reassure the public that, if there are complaints, they will be dealt with expeditiously. It will also offer an element of protection for councillors against ill-founded allegations—and there are many of those in currency at the moment. The development of best value on the basis that I have tried to outline, the new ethical framework, will do a great deal to help to deal with the problems.
We must also consider some of the other difficulties that local government faces. For example, we are working co-operatively with local authorities on community planning, on the role of councils in community leadership, and on the way in which they can establish a good and positive working relationship with the Scottish Parliament that is to come.


We want to examine local government's standing in the community. If less than 40 per cent. of the people turn out to vote in local government elections, clearly that undermines the legitimacy of mandates, and makes it more difficult for those who operate on elected councils.

Several hon.: Members rose—

Mr. Dewar: I have read the Liberal Democrat motion, so I do not think that hon. Gentlemen need to put their point to me. I accept entirely that this is not simply a Scottish problem. It is worth noticing that, at the English local government elections a few weeks ago, the average turnout was 26 per cent., which suggests that the problem goes far beyond Scotland.
That may point to at least some of the arguments that will be advanced about changes in voting systems. It will be on the agenda of the McIntosh commission, which was set up in fulfilment of an election manifesto promise by the Government. No doubt its members will have heard the arguments, and will want to consider them.
I do not intend at present to go down a technical byway, but I am by no means sure that the single transferable vote is likely to be the answer. However, I realise that we are all thirled to the baggage of the past to some extent—none more, and none in more distinguished ways, than the Liberal Democrat party. Undoubtedly there are questions to be answered, and we shall come to them.
There is also the possibility of considering, as we considered in the past, the traditional committee system through which local government has operated over many generations. The system was endorsed by a Conservative party committee in 1993, but since then it has been under constant attack.
I was interested to read a Convention of Scottish Local Authorities working party report that at least opened the door to change in that respect, by looking with some favour at some of the arguments for a Cabinet system within local government. Beyond that, there is the possibility of elected leadership in the cities.
There is a great deal to consider, and, as I have made clear in several recent speeches, I am anxious that all those matters should be on the agenda. I do not want to rush to judgment today, but I believe that the McIntosh commission has an important remit, and that we have to consider all those possibilities, as well as how to attract talented people back into local government and broaden its basis.
Local government is a vital democratic bulwark, and a level of accountability between central Government and the ordinary citizen is essential. It is also responsible for a wide range of services in Scotland. As the House will know, its total expenditure equals almost half the Scottish block.
What we cannot have in local government is inadequate systems, inefficient management or an apparent lack of effective scrutiny. Those are cancers, and if they were to spread, they would do great damage to the whole fabric of local democracy. The Government are determined to put the mechanisms in place to ensure that they are rooted out. I am sure that I will carry the House with me when I say that this is an issue not between right and left but between right and wrong.
At the heart of the problem may have been a culture of complacency in some areas, but that is something we can change. It does not lead to the conclusion that there is no

need for local democracy, or that we can in some way wipe out large parts of the remit and responsibilities of local government. However, it does put upon us a real and heavy responsibility to work with local authorities to put local government's house in order.
As for the tendering process, I repeat that the overwhelming priority must be to get the best deal for those who use the services and for the council tax payer. The head count in the DLO is not necessarily the true test when considering such matters.
Those are all important and serious questions, which go well beyond the immediate problems of two buildings and works departments in two Scottish local authority areas. Those represented very serious breakdowns in financial and management discipline, and I believe that I have taken the swiftest possible action to deal with them—action that I shall not hesitate to carry through.
Those two examples point up a need, which the Government have always recognised, for a different and modernised local government in Scotland, marching alongside a new Scottish Parliament. We want a local government elected by more local people, properly accountable to them through new ways of doing council business, and attracting a different and wider range of members who demonstrate the highest possible standards of probity. Such authorities will lead their local communities through vision and influence, and will not automatically run all services as an extension of the municipal machine.
We want a local government focused on performance and on improvement in quality and cost—in total, something of which Scotland can be proud. Despite the problems that we have seen, I believe that we are beginning to move in the right direction, and that many of the preliminary steps have been taken.
We must learn the lessons of the unfortunate events in East Ayrshire and North Lanarkshire, and make the transformation. Those problems should be a challenge—a challenge for central Government certainly, a challenge for the new Scottish Parliament inevitably, but above all a challenge for local government itself. I am convinced of the importance of local government's place in our life in Scotland, and I believe that the transformation that is needed can certainly be achieved.

Mr. James Wallace: I agreed with the Secretary of State when he expressed a view probably shared by the whole House—that there is a danger in such debates that the efforts of honest, decent, hard-working councillors will be undermined and tarnished because of problems that arise in a few councils. That is especially important as we move forwards towards a Scottish Parliament; one of the critical relationships that will have to be established is that between the Parliament and local government. Local government is concerned that the Scottish Parliament will attempt to suck powers into the centre. I know that that is not what any party in this House wishes to see, but it becomes easier to do that if local government has been undermined and given a bad name.
The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said that a prescription for valium might be required during the Scotland-Norway match this afternoon, but I wonder whether he needs a prescription to treat partial amnesia.


Reading the motion leads one to suspect that he has forgotten everything in local government for which the Conservative party was responsible. It is hard to believe that the words
Scotland requires financial stability and ethically sound local government
were written by the party that presided over Westminster council in the period when some of the greatest abuses ever in local government were perpetrated. The Conservative motion demands "an independent inquiry", but many of us argued that there should be such an inquiry before the unwanted Conservative reforms of local government went ahead.
The hon. Gentleman admitted that perhaps it was too late now and that the independent inquiry should have taken place earlier—it is always welcome when a sinner repents. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) was right to point out that some of the problems facing local government arose from that reorganisation. The Conservative Government deliberately underestimated the costs of that reorganisation and today's local government and council tax payers are having to pick up that bill. In addition, I am informed that Strathclyde region left a debt of £79 million, which is also having to be paid by council tax payers. The Secretary of State has said that those responsible for running up the debt must accept that serious responsibility.
It is undoubtedly true that there is a problem in local government. The Secretary of State was frank in saying that there was inefficient management and that there had been a lack of scrutiny; he even conceded that there had been complacency. He concentrated on two councils—East Ayrshire and North Lanarkshire—but never once acknowledged that they were councils on which the Labour majority was overwhelming. No doubt, Labour Members had been happy to go out campaigning for individual councillors in local elections and to claim great credit and triumph on the nights Labour swept to power in those councils. If there has been inefficient management, lack of scrutiny and complacency, it is Labour inefficient management, Labour lack of scrutiny and Labour complacency, because on councils with such overwhelming Labour majorities, there is no one else to blame.
It is not just those two councils, as the hon. Member for Woodspring said. In Dunbartonshire, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities had to be called in to arbitrate; in Glasgow, there was the case of votes for trips in the cause of municipal tourism—"Glasgow's miles better", but Barcelona's miles further; and in Renfrewshire, as we heard, the police have to be on standby at council meetings. I sat with the Liberal Democrat candidate in the Paisley, South by-election, Mrs. Eileen McCartin, who is a councillor on Renfrewshire council, when she described some of the things that went on there; it was a real eye-opener to the journalists who heard the full extent of the trouble. The problems are not confined to two councils, but let me repeat: not every councillor should be tarred with that brush.

Dr. Fox: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that there is a fear that what the Secretary of State

wants—bad councillors brought to account—has been undermined by the fiasco of the Labour party's internal disciplinary action in Glasgow? That makes it hard to believe that the Labour party can tackle the problem effectively.

Mr. Wallace: It is fair to say that a series of inquiries have been set up which never quite come to a conclusion. As long as that hiatus or state of limbo persists, the problems, the suspicions and the general undermining of local government will likewise persist. My own party got into serious trouble when there were allegations of racism in Tower Hamlets. We set up an inquiry under an independent chairman and we as a party were prepared to follow the recommendations in the report. The report was produced promptly and we responded decisively, but we received an awful lot of political flak—perhaps rightly so—into the bargain. However, we have not seen the same decisiveness when the Labour party has set up its inquiries.
It is easy to use local government and direct labour organisations as scapegoats for what is, in fact, underfunding disguised as council inefficiency. The current Government must take some responsibility for the underfunding of services. It is also easy, when things go wrong, to say that the Secretary of State must act. The Secretary of State has, rightly, taken powers to act, but the tendency to centralise power must be guarded against. We recall that, not long ago, the Secretary of State was only too anxious to tell the Grampian police force what action to take in respect of its chief constable, and politicians and pundits on all sides were clamouring for the Secretary of State to be given more powers. It is easy to fall into the trap of centralisation, even in matters such as the democratic local control of police, which is strongly rooted in our traditions and should not be so easily given up. We must always be wary of the trap of wanting more power to be drawn to the centre, whether here at Westminster or, eventually, in the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood.
Like the Secretary of State, I am greatly concerned about the increased cronyism of Cabinet-style local government and elected provosts, because it could lead to greater lack of accountability. It can be argued that a Cabinet style of government already exists on East Dunbartonshire council. The Labour administration there strives to conceal as much information as it can from opposition groups. Budgets have been allowed to escalate, without anyone keeping an objective eye on what is going on. The council set up a budget monitoring group—very laudable, one might think, until one discovers that it is comprised solely of Labour councillors. The efforts of opposition councillors to be involved in that group have been thwarted and cast aside by the ruling Labour group. Councillors have been able to take it for granted for too long that they will continue to be re-elected even if the affairs of the council do not run smoothly. The solutions must lie in setting up mechanisms for effective scrutiny, whereby councillors from all parties are involved in monitoring council performance, in addition to the sometimes highly effective external monitoring from the Accounts Commission.
I make no apology for mentioning the importance of proportional representation. I do not object when a party that receives more than 50 per cent. of the vote gets a majority on the council, as happened in North


Lanarkshire, East Ayrshire and Glasgow; however, no party should have more than 90 per cent. of the seats on 60 per cent. of the votes, as happened in Glasgow. That makes accountability near impossible and makes extremely feeble the opposition's ability to keep the administration up to the mark. Under a system of proportional representation, there would be a greater opportunity for opposition councillors to hold the administration properly to account and to restore credibility.
Without proportional representation for local government, there is a serious danger that a Scottish Parliament elected by proportional representation will not treat local government, if it is still elected under a distorting first-past-the-post system, with the respect that it should receive. Indeed, Scottish local government could be diminished vis-a-vis the Scottish Parliament if it does not change its electoral system. I also believe that, under a system of proportional representation in which there is voter choice, there will be no hiding place for the lazy and incompetent councillor, which is why we favour the single transferable vote system. Councillors who are simply not up to the job will soon find that the greatest indignity of all is to lose a seat to a member of their own party. At the last two sets of Scottish local elections, the Liberal Democrats have polled votes in roughly the same proportion that we have gained seats, so I can say without fear of being accused of seeking party advantage that the introduction of proportional representation would be to the advantage of democracy.
It might seem strange when, in a debate that has focused on the mismanagement of local government finance, I say that local authorities and councillors should be given more responsibility for raising their own finance, but that will be essential if local government is to restore in any meaningful sense the concepts of local democracy and local accountability. The Secretary of State talked about low turnouts, which are of concern to us all, but I do not believe that the strength of local government or the re-creation of local democracy will be advanced by elected provosts or committees. What will be of considerable influence is the relationship between local government and central Government. If local authorities are dependent on central Government for 80 per cent. or more of their funding, the relation will always be unbalanced, so we must look for ways to shift that balance.
That is why it is almost inconceivable that the independent committee set up under Neil McIntosh to consider the relationship between the Scottish Parliament and local government has specifically excluded from its remit the opportunity to consider the financial relationship between the Scottish Parliament and local government. If the Government do not change their minds about referral of the question of local government finance to the McIntosh committee between now and the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, one of the first things that the Scottish Parliament should do is to ask the committee to consider that important financial relationship—indeed, it is almost inevitable that the Parliament will do so.

Without that, an important link will be missing from the effort to ensure that local government in Scotland becomes more robust than it is.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman's remarks reveal that he believes that a Scottish Parliament will inevitably intrude and meddle more and more in local government.

Mr. Wallace: I have that suspicion, which is shared by many people in local government. I would want strongly to resist that trend. Devolution should not stop at Edinburgh. Where we can devolve more power to local authorities, we ought to do so, but that must mean that local authorities are established on a sound financial footing and on a proper democratic and accountable basis.
Local government is the level at which most ordinary citizens have the opportunity to participate or influence decisions that affect their community. It is important that local government in Scotland is robust, democratic and accountable. There are many question marks hanging over local government at present, and some of the ideas that Liberal Democrats are putting forward would go a long way toward ensuring a regeneration of local democracy in Scotland.

Ms Sandra Osborne: I speak from the perspective of someone who, until very recently, was a local councillor in South Ayrshire and who suffered the stresses and strains of local government reorganisation. Local government in Scotland cannot be discussed outwith that context or the culture of compulsory competitive tendering, which has existed for several years, and the constant attacks from previous Conservative Governments over 18 years.
I am proud to have been a member of Kyle and Carrick district council and of South Ayrshire council. However, like many current councillors, I have recently felt exasperated, disappointed and stunned at the way in which local government and public service are brought into disrepute. I very much welcome the swift action that the Secretary of State has taken to investigate outstanding matters.
I cannot remember a time in the past decade when local government was not in crisis, and the sustained attack over 18 years by previous Tory Governments is the root cause of that continuing crisis. I make no excuse, because there is none, for any failure to ensure that all duties are performed in compliance with the highest standards of probity and integrity. However, the Government have taken swift and immediate action to deal with problems and the Secretary of State has given an assurance this evening that he will not hesitate to use his powers, should that be appropriate, when the investigations are complete.
Not for the first time, I have had cause to reflect and compare local government with activities in the House. Was the same swift action taken in the past to consider standards in public life as they affect the House, or was there considerable resistance to increasing public accountability through the disclosure of information on Members' financial affairs and activities? Members who have been here somewhat longer than I have may be able to answer that question. How many drinks on the house and free lunches do hon. Members obtain? Obviously, I accept that public servants, nationally or locally, should


behave appropriately, and I very much reject the macho bullying that has been reported in the press. However, machismo is the same whether it comes from the upper class or from the working class.
In the Scottish Grand Committee earlier today, I heard described a scenario of local government out of touch with local communities. As a former local councillor, I do not recognise that scenario. Nor do I recognise the claim that local councils do not want to relinquish power to local communities. First, I take issue with that, because it is a sweeping generalisation. As a former community worker with Strathclyde regional council, I am well aware of the efforts made in the past to empower communities, particularly in the poorest areas. I am aware also of the work of voluntary organisations, funded by councils, to support voluntary provision of services and policy development. That wealth of experience is now being utilised under the new deal and policies on social exclusion.
As a local councillor, I spent many evenings attending community groups in my council ward and initiating new groups to assist me in securing resources to meet the needs of my area. I was by no means unique. I know that many councillors work in a similar manner, which is why they have retained the trust of the people who elected them. Over the years, I have received much advice, wisdom and experience from many of the older generation of councillors, some of whom, sadly, are no longer with us. It grieves me a great deal to think that such sterling public service could be undermined in any way.
One of the main problems that we face today is that many younger people gave up their involvement in local councils in the face of an increasingly centralised Government. People feel that local government has lost its influence; it has the power to raise only 15 per cent. of its revenue. The constant battleground that has existed for years between central and local government has taken its toll. Local government services became a political hot potato instead of a focus for community leadership, which they should be. Councillors and officials became more and more pressurised—but from an ideological onslaught, not from a genuine attempt to consider how councils could retain the important role of sustaining community pride and citizenship.
The new Government are pointing the way ahead with partnerships that will give local government influence again—in particular, a partnership between the Scottish Parliament and Scottish local government. I agree with the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) about increasing the powers of local government. Local government will in future reflect the wishes of the Scottish people, not impose Tory policies that nobody in Scotland wants, as happened in the past 18 years. I should like there to be a more constructive approach and wider involvement in politics at all levels. I have raised that matter in the House in relation to the Scottish Parliament, much to the disgust of some Conservative Members.
It is my experience that, given the chance, most local councillors want to do what is best for the local community, regardless of their political affiliation. I have represented an area that has traditionally switched between Conservative and Labour support. I say with all

sincerity that, in my experience, councillors from all parties are very committed to the electorate whom they serve.
I welcome the radical proposals from the Commission on Local Government and the Scottish Parliament, which have been put out to consultation, to look at various voting systems and to consider how a wider range of people can become involved as councillors, including, of course, how more women can become involved.
One of the major problems in recent years came with local government reorganisation. Many very experienced staff were lost to early retirement. There was chaos in the disaggregation process. Many of the new council areas are far too small to deal effectively with the strategic issues for which they are responsible. As I understand it, the decentralisation plans that all the new unitary authorities were asked to produce have sat on a shelf in the Scottish Office because they did not fit in with the Tories' plans and were only a paper exercise in the first place.
In spite of all that, I can certainly vouch for the fact that in my area an incredible effort was made by councillors and officials to make the new unitary authorities work despite the difficulties. In South Ayrshire, a lean management structure was put in place and council departments such as housing and social work, and education and leisure were merged. Genuine attempts have been made to provide greater input by community councils, and a citizens' jury has been set up to examine council policy and debt.
It is laudable to talk about empowering local communities, but those who have been involved, over the years, in making painful decisions know that with power comes responsibility. Democratic accountability is also a factor. If we are to involve local people in decision making, we must ensure that they have more than just a nodding acquaintance with all the facts.
The citizens' jury is an interesting example. It recently began to examine the issue of drinking in public places. At first, the majority of the citizens' jury in South Ayrshire were in favour of a ban. However, after consideration and a realisation that many complex issues were involved, the jury has thought again and decided that a more in-depth inquiry is needed. That realisation quickly dawns on anyone who is involved in the privilege of representing others and exercising powers within constraints, only some of which are financial.
I am very much in favour of widening involvement, and I am fearful of too much work— never mind too much power—being placed on the shoulders of one person. For that reason, I would be reticent about Cabinet-style local government. Councillors should be enabling, but not in the Tory definition of enabling, which meant washing one's hands of responsibility. The leader of East Ayrshire council has said that he will accept responsibility if the investigation shows any lack of responsible action and places it at his door. I commend him for that responsible attitude.
I have every faith that the Secretary of State will ensure that any current difficulties are dealt with in no uncertain manner. The Labour party has an agenda for local government's future; I should like to hear more from


Opposition parties about that future. None of the Conservative Members present has any experience whatever—

Mr. Dalyell: I hate to interrupt my hon. Friends truly excellent speech. She talked about the Tories washing their hands of responsibility. I place it on the record in her speech that, during the reorganisation of local government, some of us pleaded, begged and went on our proverbial knees to Ian Lang and Lord James Douglas-Hamilton to ask them to listen, and we were absolutely spurned.

Ms Osborne: It comes as no surprise to me that that was happening in the House as well as in local government, where our words also fell on deaf ears. In South Ayrshire, the boundaries that we got were not the boundaries that the local area needed, but those that the Conservatives believed would gain them more seats. As it turned out, they got four seats out of 25, so it did not work—but they tried.
It is notable that, by definition, none of the Conservative Members present has any experience of local government in Scotland. I find some of their attitude and some of their remarks about local councillors in Scotland very patronising and deeply offensive to those who do a very hard job on the community's behalf.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Does my hon. Friend agree that the comments of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), arguing that there was a culture of corruption within Labour local authorities, were deeply offensive? I do not remember any of us saying, when some Conservative Members were accepting large amounts of cash in brown envelopes, that it was a Tory culture and they were all at it. Why, then, are the official Opposition launching this attack? It is deeply offensive to honest, decent, hard-working councillors, who have a majority.

Ms Osborne: That is a well-made point, which will be noted by the people of Scotland as well as those present tonight.
The Commission on Local Government and the Scottish Parliament will report, and I believe that that will lead to radical change. For the sake of the Scottish people, it is vital that we go ahead on the basis of a revitalised local authority system, which has the credibility of civic pride—which has very much been enjoyed in Scotland—but in a way that reflects the needs of today's local government.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: I support the plea made by the hon. Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne) on behalf of the very many hard-working local councillors from all parties who—week in, week out—do tremendous work for local communities. On their behalf, we should all condemn anyone who lowers the standard and brings the system into disrepute. My background, also, is in local government and I know its value and worth. Due praise should be given to the hard-working, honest councillors who work for their community.
The Tory motion smacks of hypocrisy. The Tories starved Scottish local government of resources. When they were in power, they placed extra statutory burdens

on local councils and forced through a root-and-branch reorganisation against the clearly expressed wishes of the Scottish people. The Tories started the process of movement toward enabling authorities, with the consequent destruction of service departments and the loss of tens of thousands of jobs that affected communities throughout Scotland.
Since their total rejection by the electorate, the Tories have apologised for their treatment of local government. I suppose a death-bed confession is better than nothing, but it is no consolation to local authorities, the remaining staff or the communities they serve. It is an almighty insult for the Tory motion now to call for an investigation into all local government and every aspect of local government in Scotland when the problems of direct labour organisation incompetence relate to a limited number of very badly managed Labour one-party states. The efficient, professional, well-managed many should not be lumped in with the incompetent, corrupt few.
The North Lanarkshire report—an internal document from the North Lanarkshire council management services section—condemns the Labour-run direct labour organisation for its appalling "runaway Bonus Scheme". Taxpayers poured millions of pounds into a gaping financial hole that Labour councillors chose to ignore for more than a year. That damning report shows that the Labour party in North Lanarkshire swept away even the checks, balances and accountability procedures of the old Monklands and Cumbernauld and Kilsyth district councils, replacing them with the worst elements of the discredited Strathclyde region.
Under the system used by the district councils, the doomed bonus system could not have been created, nor could its effects have gone unnoticed. The report clearly states that no fewer than four elected members were aware of the situation; moreover, it refers to a report of March 1997 that levelled the same criticisms at the bonus incentive scheme.
Why on earth did those Labour councillors turn a blind eye and allow a system to continue which they surely knew would cost taxpayers millions of pounds and seriously undermine confidence in local government throughout Scotland? It is a fair question, and they should answer it.
Those Labour councillors are guilty of cheating the people in their local wards and of discrediting direct labour organisations throughout Scotland, which perform as best they can under new Labour's punitive financial regime.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Terms such as "cheating people" are not expected in a parliamentary context. The hon. Gentleman is free to say what he wants, but he should bear it in mind that those men and women have families and that they have their own integrity. I therefore appeal to the hon. Gentleman for moderate language in these matters.

Mr. Welsh: Perhaps the strength of my feelings has led me to express them rather too strongly. However, these are serious matters that affect everyone and they lead to strong emotions. I should like strong action to match those emotions to solve the problem wherever it


exists. I certainly do not wish to attack individuals in such a way, but I do wish to attack the problem that has been created.

Mr. Connarty: The hon. Gentleman has used strong language. Would he say that a member of a political party who is found guilty of fraud and stealing from the public purse should be kicked out of that political party and never allowed back into it?

Mr. Welsh: I think that if a person is guilty of fraud, a criminal prosecution should follow and they should be answerable for their own actions.
The crisis in Scottish local government not only exists at local level, but has been inflicted and encouraged by central Government. The Conservative party began the attack on councils with compulsory competitive tendering and effective privatisation of council services; new Labour has done nothing to reverse that trend. Best value retains the worst of CCT and imposes a top-heavy, bureaucratic structure that weighs the whole system down. It used to be said of some departments that they used to go out and cut the grass; now they appear to go out and measure it.
Councils must meet the demands of the Accounts Commission rather than those of the electorate and the community they serve. Unfair and inflexible comparisons are made between authorities in socially and geographically diverse areas. Crucially, best value is being implemented against a climate of severe local government budget cuts. The Labour party has clearly and unambiguously taken up the reins of local government cuts where the Tories left off.
In the last two years of Tory rule, council finances were cut by some £300 million. In Labour's first year, they have cut budgets by a further £150 million. The burden of pay increases was shifted on to councils and numerous additional financial demands were placed on local authorities without the money to back them up. That is at the root of the present crisis in local government. In addition, increases in pension costs, the effects of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, the landfill tax and the true cost of local government reorganisation have hit local government. All that has come against a background of swingeing budget cuts.
The inevitable result has been a reduction in staff and an increase in work load. Among the first casualties have been the checks and balances that existed to prevent financial irregularities. Coupled with some rather inadequate actions, that has created fiscal and democratic disaster in North Lanarkshire, and it is repeated in too many other Labour one-party states. North Lanarkshire is a mess of Labour's own making, but it is now being used as a stick with which to beat every other council in Scotland.
In opposition the Labour party was quick to attack moves that stripped councils of their powers and of their ability to provide services. Since coming to power, the Labour Government have subscribed to the Tory idea that councils should be little more than enabling bodies or

local management companies. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), has said that
fewer services under the direct control of councils has to be the future".
I utterly disagree. Aside from the fact that that is an erosion of local accountability and local control, the evidence shows that such wholesale destruction of direct service organisations and direct labour organisations will lead to greater bureaucracy and lower standards.
DLOs, their employees and the communities they serve must be protected against being undermined in that way. DLOs must be allowed to work in a framework that is efficient and transparent. The review that the Secretary of State has commissioned into DLOs all over Scotland is nothing but a smokescreen designed to cover the trail of destruction left in the wake of several disastrous and incompetent Labour councils.
It is the Labour party's responsibility to demand that its own councillors clean up their act where that is required. To hide the shame of what is going on, Labour and the Tories are calling into question every council in Scotland, as the motion shows. The accomplishment of the majority of DLOs and DSOs, which include many in Labour councils, in the face of severe pressure, is threatened by Labour's determination to erode local government from above and by inefficient management by certain Labour councillors.
The Secretary of State should realise that the problem is not with the DSOs or DLOs, but with his own party's inability to manage its resources efficiently and effectively. Local government in Scotland has been plunged into crisis and, instead of pulling it out of the mire, the Labour party seems to want it to sink for good. Fortunately, the people of Scotland now have an alternative. These are serious matters that bring into question local government as a whole. I want a strong, effective, accountable local government system. The sooner the problems are cleaned up, the better for everybody.

Mr. Michael Connarty: The motion is a false attack on the Government. It attempts to smear anyone who happens to wear a Labour ticket in a local authority. As other hon. Members have said, by imputation, anyone who serves in local government is smeared by the Conservatives. That is entirely consistent.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) pointed out, the Conservatives attacked Scottish local government during debates on their Local Government Bill in an attempt to destroy the credibility of local government by making its structures ineffective. The result was that the people of Scotland rejected the Conservatives thoroughly at local government level, and then at national level.
Now the Conservatives are picking on a difficulty in a local authority that should not have arisen, as we all agree. It should have been found out through the proper structures and controls, but it is not enough to sustain the Conservative motion, which calls for an independent inquiry. In our amendment we commend the actions of the Secretary of State.
It was clear that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) was using a hollow lance in his attack on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It was quickly


shattered because my right hon. Friend had taken an honest, open and pre-emptive approach to the problem and had shown Labour's willingness to innovate in local government in line with our ambitions and the built-in errors of past structures. I am happy to commend my right hon. Friend's speech and to support the amendment.
People seem to think that every time a councillor travels or goes to a conference it is a junket. I spent 13 years in a local authority, 10 of those years as a leader. Much of the travelling that I did and many of the conferences and seminars that I attended during that period were for the purpose of disseminating best practice.
I commend the work of ADLO—the Association of Direct Labour Organisations—which was formed to resist the attacks of the Conservatives who introduced an environment of compulsory competitive tendering in which it was impossible to take into account many factors that were relevant to the recipients of local authority services. Those factors could not be counted as part of a good service provided because of the method used, which focused on the bottom-line finances and the bidding. ADLO found ways of innovating and was a leader in the discussions on best value that will be used by the Government to provide better local authority services.
Perhaps some of the trips taken by some councillors should be monitored and the councillors disabused of the notion that they can travel abroad for a jaunt, even when the trip has no great relevance to the local authority. However, that should not introduce an atmosphere of no conferences in the local authority. Councillors and officials must be encouraged to travel, to meet, to study and to learn from each other so that best practice travels across Scotland.
Local government should be judged at many levels. There is a level of competence, a level of vigilance and a level of corruption. Those who know North Lanarkshire and the authorities that made up North Lanarkshire and East Ayrshire would say that there was a great deal of competence in many areas in those authorities and that they would stand up to scrutiny beside the best local authorities in the United Kingdom and in Scotland.
The local authorities may have fallen down in vigilance. The explanation offered by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) for other parts of Scotland was that they adopted a system used by a local authority that was not a district authority. Perhaps that method was inappropriate and the local authority lacked the fine tuning and did not have the spy glass on the right indicators to show early enough that something was going wrong. That can be dealt with by increasing vigilance.
There have been innuendos in the tabloids that corruption was going on. The example was given of a labourer who was employed as a crossing patrol man. I was amazed by the suggestion, offered by the Opposition Front Bench, that that person had earned the equivalent of £17,000. My understanding is that he was a labourer, and that if he worked all the hours he could work as a council official at his normal rate of pay he could have earned £17,000 on any job.
It happened that the council could not get anyone to fill the position of a crossing patrol man and therefore allocated to the job those people who were available—labourers. Perhaps that was wrong, but that is the explanation—not that the person was employed for a year and earned £17,000 as a crossing patrol attendant. I was

amazed to learn that that man could take his family to Gran Canaria, buy a car and refurbish his house on £17,000 a year. I should like him to come and look after my finances, because I cannot do that on my salary. I do not believe that there is room for serious accusations of corruption in that case.
I shall not go over what my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne) said, but there are many excellent councils that are innovative, enterprising and efficient. If one examines local authorities in Scotland, in 90 per cent. or more of the service delivery areas, all three adjectives apply.
In my local authority area the anti-exclusion policy in local authority schools is beginning to win back pupils from that dark area where they drop out of school and into other habits. The early intervention and early literacy schemes that I have visited at Inchyra nursery in Grangemouth were the best that I have seen, and I have looked at education throughout the UK and across the continent, especially in France. Those schemes are excellent and are making great inroads in Grangemouth.
In special needs education and the attempt to raise educational achievement for all pupils at all levels, Scottish local authorities are leading the way. When there was a Tory Government for 18 years, English local authorities would not have got into some of the difficulties that they experienced if they had followed the example of the many innovative and enterprising local authorities in education in Scotland.
There has been housing reinvigoration in the town of Grangemouth—a large overspill for Glasgow—which was probably built in a way that was not suitable for the long term when people's aspirations rose. The innovation of changing the tenure mix, top-downing flats and putting people into decent houses was commended by none other than Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, who was happy to be photographed with the tenants, local authorities and me during the last Government. There are many such examples. I am sure that there are examples in Angus and where the Liberal Democrats have influence.
I agree totally with the point made by another former councillor—my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr—who said that most people from all political parties join local authorities to serve the public and to do a good job to the highest standard. That applies to all the Conservative councillors with whom I served when I was leader of Stirling council for 10 years. There were not any SNP councillors because we had taken them all out—which is why we controlled the council.

Mr. Salmond: There are now.

Mr. Connarty: Yes. In fact, the Conservatives created two seats in the north that were taken by the SNP, but the majority for Labour in the Stirling area is higher than it has ever been because people realise that public service drives the councillors. I do not think that we ever fell out over which party was best unless it was an election year and we wanted to be judged by the electorate. For most of the time, in the quadrennial cycle, we worked together for the benefit of the public.
What did the Tories do? The last Government abandoned the use of housing plans. We sent detailed assessments of need to the Scottish Office, but they were


put on a shelf and the Government did not respond to them. That is why many of the things that went wrong in housing were allowed to go wrong.
I mentioned corruption. I have a little local difficulty in that area. I find only one part of the Conservative motion interesting. It says that we require:
financial stability and ethically sound local government".
I intervened on the hon. Member for Angus, but he did not take up my point. We have a little local difficulty in our area. We had a little difficulty when the SNP controlled Falkirk council and an SNP provost, Sandy Crawford, was sent to gaol. That is looking back in history, but we have local difficulties now.
An ex-SNP councillor from my constituency, Jamie Rae, was involved from October 1990 to January 1995 in criminal acts for which he was sent to gaol. He faced 23 charges over that period. I have the evidence with me today, which has been returned by the police. Between 12 May 1993 and the end of March 1994, he defrauded the local authority of £2,545 in false claims for housing benefit for someone who was not resident at the house at 20 School road, Redding in my constituency.
There are also fraudulent mortgages, including the sad story of Jamie Rae's own uncle who was defrauded out of his house at 20 School road. He thought that he had signed an application for a housing grant but he had actually signed a document that allowed Jamie Rae to take the money when his house was sold and a mortgage of £37,000 was raised. I have a letter from the lawyer, Graham McLachlan, which was returned by the police. It says quite clearly:
The writer's recollection however is that the proceeds of the sale of the above property were paid to Mr. James T. M. Rae".
That is the same councillor. He was gaoled, and what did we find upon his release? On 28 May 1998, that person was accepted back into the Scottish National party. I would like the leader of the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), to stand up now and tell us that he will kick him out. He is the kind of person we do not want in local government. I would like the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan to do the honourable thing now and say that he will throw Mr. Rae out of the SNP.

Mr. Salmond: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously seek to demean a debate about the conduct of the Labour party in North Lanarkshire, East Ayrshire, Glasgow and in many councils across west and central Scotland by talking about an individual case involving someone who transgressed and has paid his debt to society? Any party in the House would have members such as that. Is he saying that that is what the debate is about? If so, it shows the desperation of the Labour party in Scotland.

Mr. Connarty: That intervention shows the paucity of the hon. Gentleman's argument about good local government. The money taken from the council has never been paid back. The money taken from my constituents, who paid the housing benefit charges, has never been returned by that individual. It is in a bank account somewhere. It is important to raise the matter here because the motion refers to ethical local government. We can deal with competence and vigilance, but the

leader of the SNP must deal with corruption and get that person out of his party. I contend that that person would never be allowed back into the Labour party; can the hon. Gentleman say the same about his party?
In considering this debate, I would like the Secretary of State to look seriously at finding a way of stopping such individuals from standing for local government when they have clearly defrauded money from the public purse—from their own constituents—and not returned it. That matter is very important to my constituents.
On the general approach to local government, I believe that this is a false and not very well-researched debate; it seems to have come from newspaper cuttings rather than from original ideas. I notice that the hon. Member for Woodspring, who led for the Opposition, has returned to the Chamber. I point out to him that police are called so often to Renfrewshire district council because SNP members put down motions that would never be accepted in the House—for example, "The provost is a liar—discuss." That is the sort of motion that they debate. When they are ruled out of order, they march up and down the council chamber banging on the table. In fact, they climb on the table in Renfrewshire district council chamber and refuse to leave when they are ordered out. That is why the police are called. That is what the SNP is offering the people of Scotland as an alternative at present. SNP Members should be ashamed of trying to use that in this debate.

Mr. Salmond: rose—

Mr. Connarty: The hon. Gentleman should sit down. If he cannot do the honourable thing, I shall not let him intervene. On the general approach to local government, it is important that we deal with the facts and the problems.

Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Should we not move the debate from individuals to subjects such as Ferguslie Community Business in Renfrewshire? Has the hon. Gentleman ever heard of that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already appealed for temperate language in the Chamber. We must be careful. Hon. Members have protection in the House, but it is perhaps unfair in a debate such as this, when we are considering local government in general, to refer to individuals by name. We should try to keep to the terms of the motion. I think that the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) has made his point and should move on. My ruling applies to every hon. Member: I ask that the debate remains at a certain standard.

Mr. Connarty: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I made a point of using only evidence that was allowed in court and on the basis of which someone was found guilty in order to stress that we need ethical local government. That means that every party must deal with its members who break that ethic and the rule of no corruption in the harshest fashion or be judged unfit to put up candidates in local government elections.

Dr. Fox: Far be it from me to defend the Scottish National party, but this debate is about the ethical conduct of the Labour party in local government in Scotland simply because it is by far the largest party. Throughout the debate, we have discussed the way local government


is being run. The hon. Gentleman referred to being able to take effective action. Does he honestly believe that what has happened to Pat Lally in Glasgow amounts to effective action?

Mr. Connarty: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned another name and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have admonished us about for using individuals' names. I shall not be impolite to you by taking up the hon. Gentleman's point.
The motion and its terms are quite clear: it is about ethically sound local government. I commend the fact that the hon. Gentleman has drafted the motion in such a way as to allow that subject to be discussed. It is important to say clearly that, while we can work on incompetence and deal with vigilance and the structures for vigilance, corruption is just not acceptable in any part of local government. That is why I made those points.
In winding up, I move to the general approach to local government. I believe that local government has a very good record in Scotland—despite the fact that errors were made before I entered local government that people would quote to me as being reasons why it was not something in which one wanted to be involved. I am glad that I did not take that advice and instead became involved in local government. We found that Labour candidates were able to take Scottish nationalists out of the council because they were able to win their seats.
I believe that I followed the hon. Member for Angus in that I represented the same seat in the council after taking it off his successor, who was an SNP councillor. We did not do what we did on the basis that we wanted to abuse them. We wanted to replace them and to do better than them, not necessarily to drag them down or attack them. That has been the basis on which most councillors have gone into councils.
If things go wrong, one of the reasons is that because of their size and structure councils can suggest—even Government can suggest—that councillors should remove themselves by going into some sort of think tank, including general policy committees and strategic committees, leaving the council officers to get on with delivering services. If councillors get the structures right and if the reporting mechanisms are correct they can, possibly, take that course, but I would argue that the involvement of as many councillors as possible and as many individual contacts as possible between officers who deliver services and accountants to evaluate the quality of those services and the cost of them, along with the performance and quality of those who are responsible for the delivery of the services, can benefit local government.
I would worry if we ever moved to a super-councillor concept—a few councillors to look after everything and the rest having no function. We must give local Government some dignity. That means that we must be more supportive as a Government. We must be more interrogative and there must be more scrutiny, but we must be more supportive. Our approach must be positive. We must try to correct errors and to give those involved good structures, good advice and good, firm rules setting out how councillors should go about things. We should then support and encourage them.
I worry that people do not turn out to vote. I am involved in a by-election in my constituency. It is the first one this year. If 32 per cent. of the people turn out to

vote, I will be seriously disappointed. However, I believe that that was the average turnout in the English local government elections.

Dr. Fox: It was lower.

Mr. Connarty: So it was less than 32 per cent. That is even worse.
Perhaps the problem is that the Government—previous Governments and even the present Government—have not given local government proper value and have not talked it up to make people realise that it is an important matter. It is public service. I was a teacher who worked on a half-time contract for 10 years so that I could be a councillor on a Thursday and Friday and on most evenings when I was not in school. That was my choice. I was lucky to have another salaried person in the house, which enabled me to do that. Many people are not in that position. I am not saying that I was necessarily of the calibre that we have been discussing, but people of high calibre should be attracted to give public service at local authority level.
I think that the Government should seriously consider abolishing the Widdicombe rules, which is the United Kingdom equivalent of Berufsverbot. Individuals in certain positions in a local authority area cannot stand for any political position. They cannot offer to serve. It was an honourable tradition and not a much abused one where those who were professionals served. Often local government officers served in other local authorities. That is more difficult now because of the size of local authorities. However, I believe that offence was caused to those who were willing to give public service. We should consider ways of releasing professional talent and bringing it back into local authorities. We should kick out the motion and support the amendment.

Mr. Graham Brady: At one point, the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) suggested that this was a false debate. Far from that being the case, we initiated the debate to put the spotlight on the behaviour of many Labour local authorities in Scotland and to introduce appropriate scrutiny, which is an important democratic function. The hon. Gentleman suggested two local authorities. I think that we might suggest one or two more than that.
The debate has produced a particular and welcome advantage because we have given the people of Scotland a foretaste of what the Scottish Parliament may hold in some of the exchanges between Labour Members and Scottish nationalists in the Chamber this evening.

Mr. Welsh: The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) will not be there.

Mr. Brady: I did not mean to suggest that particular individuals in the Chamber may be participants in such exchanges in the Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Salmond: Apparently the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) will not be going to the Scottish Parliament because he did not wear a tie for his interview in the Labour party and was turned down.

Mr. Brady: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) pleaded with others to keep within the terms of the motion but he is now outwith its terms.

Mr. Brady: It is welcome and important that the Labour party is at least prepared to set some standards in some things, if not in local government. I may actually welcome that, although I am sure it is a great loss to the local Scottish Parliament that the hon. Member for Falkirk, East will not be represented there.
The hon. Gentleman defended the payment to a lollipop man of £17,000 a year. I would not wish to comment on that. I notice that he did not bother to defend the record of a plumber earning £54,000 a year. Perhaps he thought that there was nothing exceptional in that and that it was a typical income for someone in that profession. That may be true.
The hon. Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne) referred properly to the many very good councillors. A number of hon. Members have referred to the many people who have given sterling service—no pun intended, and no credit intended to the Stirling local authority—to local authorities and to the people in Scotland, as in the rest of the country, over a number of years. The hon. Lady is right to highlight that.
It is unfortunate that, whenever parties, hon. Members or people outside the House draw attention to the bad behaviour of a few people in public life, the reputations of others are tarnished, but that does not detract from the fact that it is essential to apply proper scrutiny to what is happening in local government in Scotland. It would be wrong to avoid debating subjects because they might detract from the good work that people do.
The Secretary of State made a gracious speech, and fully and frankly admitted that something must be done about the state of local government in Scotland. He is absolutely right, but he did not go nearly far enough in his analysis of the problem or in examining ways in which it should be addressed. Uncomfortable as it may be, Labour Members must accept that their party, not the structures of local government or the systems with which they may want to tinker, is, in many ways, at the root of the problem.
The new charge that the Secretary of State levelled at Scottish local authorities was most interesting. He suggested that they had systematically flouted the law on compulsory competitive tendering over a number of years—something that many of us had suspected at many junctures. It was interesting that he emphasised that, and appeared to admit and accept it.
The debate brought from my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) an appalling litany of incompetence and corruption on the part of many local authorities in Scotland and many councillors. We have heard about the situation in North Lanarkshire at length, and I shall not dwell on the more ludicrous examples of conduct there. It was not brought out, however, that council employees owe more than £1 million in council tax. The appalling incompetence of a council that allows its employees to be in such a position beggars belief.
We have heard that two Labour councillors in East Ayrshire threatened a council officer with the sack if he did not use his allowance or expenses to buy them drinks. The hon. Member for Ayr, rather disingenuously, suggested that that is comparable to hon. Members occasionally accepting free drinks or meals from outside bodies. I should imagine that all of us present in the Chamber have declined superficially attractive engagements involving free drinks or a meal, and had a

much more enjoyable and fulfilling time than we would have done had we succumbed to those temptations. What has happened has nothing in common with someone from outside the House offering hospitality to a Member of Parliament or to a councillor. The onus would be on such an hon. Member or councillor not to be influenced in any way by hospitality, but accepting such hospitality is simply not comparable to the rather disgraceful allegations that have been laid against those councillors. They abused their position in the most appalling way and, what is more, placed council officers—their employees—in a terrible position.
We all know of the votes for trips allegations in Glasgow. I understand that not council employee but a councillor owes £3,748 in council tax arrears. That is another disgraceful disregard for office. Another Glasgow councillor, who is, I understand, in receipt of £40,000 a year of taxpayers' money through various allowances and urban development work, has bought a new house, but has not repaid £1,300 of rent arrears on a council house.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman name the councillor to whom he is referring?

Mr. Brady: I am relying on press reports. I cannot name the councillor.

Mr. Dalyell: It is all very well to rely on press reports, but I know to whom the hon. Gentleman is referring. It is a poor press report that does not give the full story, if the right person has been identified. Members of the House of Commons should not make unspecified allegations about individuals of whom they know nothing.

Mr. Brady: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. If the press reports are inaccurate, I apologise unreservedly to the individual concerned.

Mr. Hayes: Before my hon. Friend continues his combination of a sermon and a travelogue, will he consider this point? The litany of misdeeds that he describes is part of a local government culture that is peculiar to parts of Scotland. It will damage the good name of local government in Scotland and, as a consequence, people will become disillusioned with the democratic process. The serious issue is not the individual cases, but the effect that they have on Scottish Labour local government culture.

Mr. Brady: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. That is the point. If the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) knows that press reports have been misleading, he is right to correct any false impression. That does not alter the fact that the sheer volume and weight of the allegations in all parts of the Scotland that have appeared in the press for some time and that are frequently subject to investigation show a picture of incompetence and corruption. Given the large number of allegations, it would be reprehensible of us not to draw attention to them.
In East Dunbartonshire, even Unison has attacked councillors as fat cats and suggested that they pay themselves too much money. The picture is one of arrogance and disdain in far too many parts of Scotland.


There is disdain for the public and for democracy. The Secretary of State was right to refer to a culture of complacency. It would be wrong to contemplate further relaxation of the ban on political office for senior employees, as the hon. Member for Falkirk, East suggested. One of the causes of this difficulty is the blurring of the distinction between councillors and officers: between public office and the services that councils control. The background to compulsory competitive tendering and the fact that some services did not go out of council control was unfortunate: it might have lessened the problem if they had.
What has happened in Scotland is unfortunately reminiscent of what happened in other parts of the country over many years. I shall not dwell on the loony left in London, because you would rightly call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is an old Labour story of municipal sleaze. It occurs in many places. I am sympathetic to the many Labour Members who are properly ashamed of the bad conduct of members of their party.
When one party is in control of a local authority, often with insufficient opposition from other parties—in effect, a one-party state—it can lead to abuse. We have seen that happen in many of the great cities of the north. Labour control of Liverpool has recently ended. Sadly, the electors in Liverpool moved only to the first stage: it is now under Liberal Democrat control, and it will not return to its former greatness until it is once again under Conservative control.
In my city of Manchester, we are wary of what has happened in Scotland. Manchester city council wants to expand its boundaries to include parts of my constituency. My constituents tremble with fear at the prospect of being subsumed by the kind of one-party state that we see in local government in Scotland.
Labour has had too much power for too long in too many town halls in Scotland. The only hope for democracy lies with the Scottish people. They can reduce the dominance of Labour in Scottish local government. That will happen over time. The only thing that concerns me greatly is that they may turn to the Scottish National party to remove Labour from office, as it seems they intend to do for the Scottish Parliament. That will give the impression that they want full independence for Scotland, and I hope and believe that that is a false impression. The only answer is for them to turn to other parties in Scotland that do believe in the Union. I firmly hope and believe that they will begin to return to the Conservative cause, which will start to redress some of the difficulties and imbalances that we have debated this evening.

Ms Rachel Squire: I trust that, at some stage, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) will ask himself why, at the most recent local elections, the people of Scotland decided to get rid of the few Conservative-controlled councils that remained.
I have mixed feelings about today's debate. Along with, I think, hon. Members on both sides of the House, I wish that it had not been necessary: I wish that there had been no sign of mismanagement in any Scottish local authority. Again along with hon. Members on both sides, I think,

I believe that any misconduct on the part of local government, or indeed central Government, should be dealt with appropriately and fully.
Like others, I emphasise that the majority of elected representatives, whether they are Members of Parliament or councillors, are honest and hard working, and that it is in no one's interest for a cloud to hang over the conduct and credibility of elected representatives. Unlike one or two earlier speakers, I well remember how, in the last Parliament, many hon. Members felt that our reputation was being tarnished by sleaze and suspicion generated by the conduct of certain members of the then Government party, particularly their appalling practice of accepting cash for questions.
I do not believe, and I do not think that the public believe, that there is anything to be gained from using the debate to score cheap party political points. If we are completely honest, we must say that every political party that is represented here tonight has had, at one time or another, to investigate allegations of misconduct among its own members and elected representatives—and rightly so. The public expect the highest standards of conduct from those who hold public office. It is important for us to demonstrate tonight that our common objective is to uphold those standards, and to praise and give credit to those who have conducted themselves so well for so many years.

Mr. Hayes: I respect much of what the hon. Lady has said about ensuring that the highest standards are upheld, but what tangible proposals has she for putting that in place? The Secretary of State mentioned a commission for complaints and a new code of conduct, but what about other statutory measures?

Ms Squire: I shall refer later to some of the actions that the Government have already proposed and, indeed, taken. First, however, let me praise the swift action taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in relation to North Lanarkshire and East Ayrshire councils.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that the present system of local government, and the present structure that controls it in this country, were set up by the Conservative party? During their 18 years in office, the Conservatives passed more local government Bills than any other Administration, and what exists now is a result of their Government.

Ms Squire: My hon. Friend makes some relevant points.
It demonstrates the determination of the Secretary of State that he has not only acted swiftly in respect of two councils, but taken the opportunity to review the operation of all direct labour organisations in Scottish local government. He has ensured that external auditors go through the books of each and every one of them to reveal whether there are any further causes for concern. In reply to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), let me say that this Government have already published a new ethical framework for Scottish councils and are endeavouring to ensure the highest standard of conduct.
Opposition Members have said quite a lot about culture. I clearly remember some aspects of a culture where people were desperate to retain jobs in the public sector.


They were desperate as they saw tens of thousands of jobs in the mining industry, in the heavy engineering sector, in the steel industry and in manufacturing destroyed by the previous Government, who must accept some responsibility for making councils feel that the priority had to be to try to maintain some reasonable level of employment in local authorities.
This Government have already demonstrated their commitment to ensuring that councils are efficient and provide quality and best value services. The Secretary of State has issued a notice to councils over concerns and instructed them to come back with a rationale. He will look at what they have to say and issue the necessary directions. Every council in Scotland will be required to introduce a new code of conduct for councillors and, as has been mentioned, the independent commission is already examining the future relationship between a Scottish Parliament and local government.
Despite the impression that may have been given by some Opposition Members, I want to mention some of the excellent actions that have been taken by councils in Scotland, particularly the council that I deal with as a Member of Parliament, Fife council. To use the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), it has been innovative, enterprising and efficient in many respects.
Let me cite one or two examples. In the budget-setting exercise for the financial year 1997-98, Fife council undertook the largest consultation exercise of any council in Scotland. It involved all of its council employees, hundreds of community groups and local residents. The council also held more than nine public meetings to discuss directly with the people of Fife how they thought that the council's expenditure could best be spent.
The council decided not to wait for further action from central Government but immediately to take seriously the work of the Nolan committee; it has already adopted the national code of conduct for elected members. It has shown its determination to develop an integrated, one-stop approach to local services. I recently had the pleasure of opening the local services office in High Valleyfield in my constituency; the council had directed money there to provide such a local service.
Fife council and other councils should be applauded for the action that they have taken on so many matters—such as providing education, especially pre-school education, and on domestic violence—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) scoffs. Perhaps she finds it difficult to accept that Labour-controlled councils can provide first-class services to the people whom they represent.
I am looking forward to developing new ways of working—which could be one of the positive consequences of today's debate—in ensuring that we change the face of politics in both central and local government, in building a positive and constructive relationship between local government and the Scottish Parliament and in demonstrating the House's commitment to giving the people a voice that will be heard—in contrast to the way that the voices of the many were ignored, for 18 years, by the few in the previous Government.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I am ashamed that today's debate is necessary and, from his eloquent speech, I rather suspect that the Secretary of State is also ashamed that such a debate is necessary. Although he was careful in dealing with the specifics of the motion on the Order Paper, he was also careful to distance himself from the culture of Labour in local government in Scotland.
I am ashamed because the once good name of Renfrewshire and Paisley—which is my home—has been tarnished by the behaviour of some of the elected representatives. I care about what happens to the people of Paisley and Renfrewshire. Although I should like to say that they do not deserve their local government, I cannot say it. They deserve their local government because they persist in voting for Labour, and sometimes for the Scottish National party.
I remember Paisley and the villages around it as a prosperous and proud area. The hon. Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne) was wrong—although she had no way of knowing it—in saying that Conservative Members know nothing about local government in Scotland, because I do. My father was a member of Renfrewshire district council for almost 20 years—for the whole of my early life. However, those were very different days.

Ms Osborne: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, especially as I—as a Paisley buddy myself—seem to have something in common with her. If she will tell me her father's name, it may be that I knew him.

Mrs. Laing: I must, because of time, make some progress.
Those were very different days—I am talking about the 1960s and 1970s, so I very much doubt that the hon. Lady knew my father; but that is not really the point—when the object of seeking election was to serve the local community, not to line one's own pockets or to get jobs for one's friends and family.
I am not suggesting—Labour Members will agree with me—that simply electing more Conservative councillors in Scotland will make the difference. I can think of several decent old-style Labour, SNP and independent councillors who, although I would not agree with their policies, were decent people doing their best for their own local community. Indeed, a member of my family was a prominent Glasgow Labour councillor for many years. Today, however, I would not embarrass him by asking him what he thinks about the necessity of this debate or the behaviour of his successors. He, too, must be ashamed of them.
Many senior Labour Members must be ashamed of the way in which their supporters have been behaving for many years in Scotland. However, we are debating not old Labour—which, however wrong in its economic and social policy, had principles—but new Labour, which has no principles, no beliefs, no standards, no discipline and no decency. New Labour is only out for itself. The new Labour party in the west of Scotland is rotten to the core. Labour Members know that, which is why they are embarrassed. I do not know why the Secretary of State is laughing—it is not funny. It is certainly not funny for the people of the west of Scotland who have to live under the domination of Labour local government.


I have every sympathy, however, with the people who try to combat sleaze in the west of Scotland. I am thinking of the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) and the late hon. Member for Paisley, South who, we should not forget, fought hard against the sleaze that he encountered daily in his constituency.
How amusing it was to hear the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) criticising my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) for not having intimated to the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Mr. Graham) that he might mention his name in the House tonight. What difference would it have made? We have not seen the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire for nearly a year. The people of West Renfrewshire are not represented in the House because of Labour sleaze in the west of Scotland.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No hon. Member should be associated with any type of sleaze. I hope that the hon. Lady was not making any particular comment about the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Mr. Graham). Whether or not the hon. Gentleman is absent, the hon. Lady should not make such a comment.

Mrs. Laing: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for clarifying what I was saying. I make absolutely no allegation against any particular hon. Member. I am talking about the culture of the Labour party in the west of Scotland, not about any particular person.
The Secretary of State was very swift this evening to blame the newspapers for spreading stories, but I did not have to read the newspapers—I heard directly how often the police have been called to meetings of Renfrewshire district council. Everyone in the area knows it. The Secretary of State knows that many of the reports in the newspapers are factually absolutely correct.

Mrs. Irene Adams: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Laing: I beg the hon. Lady's pardon, but I cannot give way because of the lack of time.

Mrs. Adams: rose—

Mrs. Laing: Oh, very well. I give way briefly to the hon. Lady as she represents Paisley, North.

Mrs. Adams: The hon. Lady will be aware that when the police have been called, it has been by the Labour party with the support of the Conservatives on Renfrewshire council on account of the conduct of the Scottish National party in particular and of some independent members.

Mrs. Laing: I thank the hon. Lady, but I am aware that Conservative councillors on Renfrewshire district council have been instrumental in calling the police time and again.
The Secretary of State this evening simply swept aside many of the press reports. I shall not deal with them in detail because of the lack of time, but every hon. Member knows of the allegations concerning council officials, councillors and the people who are running the Labour party in the west of Scotland.
The Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) were swift to defend direct labour organisations. I attack DLOs without reservation. They were even worse before the Conservative Government introduced compulsory competitive tendering. The reason why I condemn DLOs out of hand is that they unfairly undercut small local businesses. The Secretary of State defends the public sector. The Labour party pretends to be the party of business, but it is not. It is interested only in the public sector, certainly not in small businesses in the west of Scotland.
Examination of local government in Scotland provides a tragic vision of what might happen in the future. It does not augur well for the new Scottish Parliament. I wonder whether Labour Members are aware that American companies planning to invest in Scotland are now taking out political risk insurance—that is how much confidence the Labour party inspires in the very people it wants to attract to improve the Scottish economy.
The point of the debate is what we have learnt not about individuals but about the Labour party itself, and not only in Scotland. Its leadership, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have been careful to distance themselves from their party's activists. They are so concerned with their image that they want to cast aside the facts. What we have learnt tonight is not about old Labour or new Labour, but about real Labour. The people of Scotland should beware of real Labour.

Mr. Desmond Browne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for giving up the opportunity to speak, to allow me a few minutes. I have a particular interest in the debate, because my constituency is wholly within the borders of East Ayrshire council. I share the concerns of all hon. Members about the serious deficit that my council has had to report in the accounts of the direct labour organisation. The figures reveal unacceptable management failure and inefficiency. That view is shared by the leader of the council and all its elected members, including the administration and the opposition.
To prevent the House from relying on recycled press releases, misquoted and sometimes partially quoted by the hon. Members for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) and for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), I had intended to go into the history of the deficits at some length and explain the actions of the council and the councillors. I do not have time to do so, but I am sure that the House will accept that I have investigated the issues as far as I can, subject to the Accounts Commission's investigation, and am satisfied that we are not dealing with a story of sleaze, corruption or the abuse of a one-party state. It is a story of elected members who do a difficult job. In November last year, they realised for the first time that there were problems, and have organised and instructed proper investigations, which have revealed the deficits.
The council leadership and chief executive have explained their decisions fully to the opposition Scottish National party councillors and have taken them with them. At no stage during the investigation has any opposition member on the council been kept in the dark about what was going on. Importantly, no opposition member has expressed any view contrary to the decisions of the administration.


The council prides itself on openness and accountability. To my understanding, it was the only council in Scotland to take its budgets out to public consultation in public meetings. I see some of my hon. Friends shaking their heads, so it may not be the only council, but it was certainly one of the first to do so. As soon as the extent of the problems came to light, the leader of the council issued a press release. I shall quote from it to show the responsibility that the council has taken for the issue. He said:
We instigated an investigation as soon as the deficit came to light, we called in the Accounts Commission when we realised it was growing, and we contacted the Scottish Office when the scale of the problem began to emerge.
When the independent audit is complete and when all the information is available it will be made public. Further I have asked the officers of the Council if we can instruct an independent inquiry into the actions of all the elected members including myself.
The leader of the council has since said publicly that if he is criticised, he will consider his position and act accordingly. He is a man of integrity. Finding themselves in a difficult position, East Ayrshire councillors have taken steps from day one to clear up the mess, inefficiency and mismanagement. They will accept the political responsibility required of their office. I commend their integrity to all hon. Members.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could it be put on the record that several hon. Members would have wished to speak, so that anyone reading the debate will not draw the conclusion that there was a lack of interest? In no way do I criticise the choice of speakers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair. Those who were not called will be remembered on a future occasion.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: I share the misery of many colleagues on both sides of the House at the fact that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was unable to speak in the debate. He always has an interesting contribution to make.
Given what might be the somewhat sore and battered nerves of Labour Members, I shall begin by warming the cockles of their hearts. There is a very beautiful kind of old rose which grows in many parts of the kingdom and goes by the name of New Dawn. At the election, many millions of our fellow countrymen thought, rightly or wrongly, that they would see a new dawn from the Labour rose. They were told by no less a figure than the Prime Minister in various utterances, and in the manifesto, that the Labour Government would be committed to open government, cleaning up politics and improving local government. Those claims were repeated and repeated. If those claims were real, they should clearly apply in every part of the kingdom—in Scotland and in Scottish local government. [HON. MEMBERS: "And in Westminster."] Indeed, in Westminster as well.
In this debate, various very serious allegations have been raised about the conduct of local government in Scotland from every point of view. They have been raised from the point of view of financial mismanagement—admitted in great part by the Secretary of State—of

corruption, of cronyism and favouritism, and of the way in which the culture of local government, particularly Labour local government in Scotland, works. The accusations may be true or false; they may be partly true or partly false.
Labour Members spent time explaining that the allegations were very restricted. They tried to minimise the scope of the allegations, saying that only one or two councils are affected. I have no doubt that some were telling the absolute truth when they explained that there are many excellent councillors—Labour councillors and others—in Scottish local government who are doing good work, and that many councils are doing good work. Labour Members did not answer the allegations point by point; they merely sought to minimise them.
The Secretary of State took a different tack. He made a most interesting and, as always, a very eloquent speech. He posed as the magisterial figure, who has nothing to do with the mere squabbles of party politics. In all his awesome grandeur, he is to descend on the councils as an independent arbiter. He is to set matters right by putting in some accountants, and then by changing—or, at any rate, considering changing—structures.
The accusations that have been raised by my hon. Friends and members of other parties are not trivial. They are serious accusations, which, if they were true, nobody could claim would not warrant serious investigation and remedying. In fact, I think that the Secretary of State admits as much.
If this is the Government who are committed to open government, cleaning up politics and improving local government, is it so very much to ask them to conduct a full and open independent public inquiry into the allegations to discover how far the multitude of press reports is true, partly true or false? How can a party that proclaimed to the British public that it sought openness, purity and reform of local government not commission such an inquiry in the face of such a welter of accusations?

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: What reason does the hon. Gentleman have to suppose that the Accounts Commission is not an independent body?

Mr. Letwin: I make no such accusation. The Accounts Commission is an independent body but it is restricted by statute. It can investigate only a narrow range of financial matters. The Secretary of State was at pains to point out that his objection to the motion, which he would otherwise have accepted, was precisely that we were seeking to widen the scope of the inquiry. I repeat the question: how can a Government and party devoted to openness and to cleaning up and improving local government resist an independent inquiry of wider scope?
On 12 July 1997, a right hon. Gentleman who does not often appear in the House but is of more importance than we poor mortals who do, the Prime Minister, told a Labour party conference:
But we are on trial. Deliver our promises, repay the people's trust, and we will be rewarded with more of their confidence. Go back on those promises, return to old ways, and we will lose that trust.
He was right. There is a sort of trial, but, alas, it closely resembles Kafka's trial. The Prime Minister, as Prime Minister, is judge. As leader of the Government, he is


foreman of the jury. Most important, as leader of the Labour party, he is the plaintiff. That is not open government.

Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman's vocabulary is slightly wrong. The debate is about Scotland, where we say "accused", not "plaintiff".

Mr. Letwin: I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's credentials. He has explained to the Competition Bill Committee that he is not a lawyer but a notary. I do not regard either point as material to the debate.
If we do not have an inquiry, it will do lasting damage not only to local government in Scotland and the Labour party but to the structure of democracy in this kingdom. It will do damage because the Labour party—I apologise to hon. Members who represent the Scottish National party—is likely, often if not immediately, to form the new Government of Scotland. I thought that the Secretary of State might appreciate those remarks. No doubt SNP Members are quietly fuming, but the people of Scotland may well elect Labour to the new Government of Scotland.

Mr. Salmond: I do not mind the hon. Gentleman conceding defeat for the Conservative party, but can he leave us out?

Mr. Letwin: The issue is not the frivolous debating point of whether Labour will win, but that it may win. It is therefore of the utmost importance to the electorate not only of Scotland but of the United Kingdom to know that the Labour party in Scotland has been cleared of what the Secretary of State claims are overblown allegations. He can do that only by commissioning a full, independent inquiry. At that point, the problem will disappear. Until then, we have what was accurately described by Kafka as
a blend of fog and smoke filling
the Chamber
with a faint smell of burning soot".

Mr. Wallace: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his motion? is it for an independent inquiry into the allegations that have been made, or, as appears in the Order Paper, into the conduct of local government in Scotland, in which the whole of local government in Scotland is tarred with the same brush?

Mr. Letwin: The sad fact is that the dominance of the Labour party in local government in Scotland, especially in the councils under discussion, is so nearly complete that the difference evaporates. It is a difference without a distinction.
We are asking whether it is true, as is alleged in press report after press report, that the culture of the Labour party in dominating local government in Scotland has reached a point at which it needs investigation. That question can be answered only by such an investigation.

Mr. Dewar: As the hon. Gentleman is talking, as many hon. Members have talked, about Renfrewshire council and its dominance by the Labour party, could he tell us what the political make-up of Renfrewshire council is?

Mr. Letwin: I have no intention of spending the last half-minute of my speech doing that. I shall, as the Secretary of State himself would say, write to the right hon. Gentleman on the matter.
The question at issue is clear: will the Secretary of State open local government in Scotland to the kind of inquiry that it deserves and needs, following those allegations? If, in the winding-up speech, we are to be told that the answer to that question is no, we must be told why not. Why will those claims made by the Labour party before, during and after the general election not be applied in this case, by means of a full, independent and open inquiry?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): Despite its ups and downs, this has been a useful debate on the whole, and has made some things, at least, a wee bit clearer. First, there is agreement that, in two cases, direct labour organisations in Scottish local councils made unacceptably high losses, and revealed serious problems within management and control. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made plain, serious failure of that magnitude is not acceptable, and will not be tolerated.
Secondly, as several hon. Members have said, it is clear that my right hon. Friend acted swiftly and promptly in response to the problems when they emerged. He instantly activated the statutory procedure, issued notices to the two councils, and called for reports from all councils on the financial status of their DLOs. He has also asked the Accounts Commission to prepare a high-level audit of all councils in July, not only on the operation of their DLOs but on the client side.
It is important to point out, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm) has just suggested, that the Accounts Commission is independent. Its findings will be made public, and in the course of its investigations it can ascribe responsibility for the various things that have gone wrong.
The action that my right hon. Friend has already taken is, I believe, unparalleled in its speed. He has made clear his intention to act effectively and swiftly in the statutory process that he has started. He has also made it clear that, if similar problems emerge in other Scottish councils, he will not hesitate to take similar action.
The third factor that has emerged in the course of the debate is the paucity of constructive suggestions from the Conservatives to tackle the crisis that they affect to describe. It has become clear that it is the Government who have the constructive agenda for reform and modernisation of local government. The proposals for a new ethical framework, for the appointment of the McIntosh commission with a radical and far-ranging brief, and for the development of a new system of best value to replace the discredited policy of compulsory competitive tendering, are all evidence of the Government's drive to improve and modernise.
To pick up some of the specific points that have been made in the debate—

Dr. Fox: Did not the failings of the two councils whose DLOs gave rise to the problem occur within what the Government have described as best value practice?

Mr. Macdonald: The contracts that the DLOs now have were secured by competitive tendering. The competitive tendering was not compulsory, but it was entered into voluntarily by the local authorities, which followed the exact procedures that the Conservative


Government laid down. Those are the procedures that produced the contracts that led to the problems for the local authorities.
During the debate, some hon. Members advanced constructive proposals for reform and improvement in local government. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne) mentioned the value of systems of decentralisation, and of the establishment by various local authorities of citizens' juries. Local authorities have pioneered several different decentralisation schemes, which have been submitted to the Scottish Office. While they are not actually gathering dust, the Government have no power to dictate to local authorities how to operate such schemes, which is right, because there must be space for local flexibility. The existence and experience of those schemes will be a valuable resource for the McIntosh commission.
The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) turned to his favourite remedy for all ills—proportional representation. We have asked the McIntosh commission to take a fundamental look at how to enhance accountability within local government, including asking questions about why people do not turn out to vote and how best to elect councillors.
I concede that there is a case for some form of proportional representation in local government elections, albeit not an unanswerable case, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recognised that case in his recent Richard Stewart memorial lecture. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, I am not opposed in principle to proportional representation, and nor are the Government; we have introduced it for European elections and for elections to the Scottish Parliament, but we remain agnostic about its suitability for local government.

Mr. Wallace: I did not say that proportional representation was necessarily a panacea for all problems—in fact, an important aspect of the relationship between central Government and local government, which influences the strength of local government, is the financial relationship between the two. Will the Minister explain why the financial relationship between the Scottish Parliament and Scottish local government is not within the remit of the McIntosh commission?

Mr. Macdonald: There are two reasons: first, it would make the work of the McIntosh commission too unwieldy if it had to investigate those financial systems in detail; and, secondly, we are reviewing the financial arrangements for local government as part of the comprehensive spending review, and we shall publish a consultation paper on that subject in the summer. The McIntosh commission has said that it would want to look generally at the financial relationship between the Scottish Parliament and local government, which we accept is a proper and legitimate thing to do.
The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) was rather critical of recent Accounts Commission reports, and implied that they were rather inflexible, but he is quite wrong. I would argue that those reports are an important starting point for the best value process, because they allow an increasingly sophisticated system of benchmarking and competitive comparisons between various local authorities

to be developed. A couple of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), raised the question of the Widdicombe rules. Those are being reviewed, although I would not anticipate the dramatic change for which my hon. Friend argued.
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) mentioned council tax collection. I can tell him that we expect councils to improve their collection rates, and that the Government have made special funds available to achieve that end. We expect councils to ensure that their own employees in particular pay their debts to the council. That must be an important priority for councils, as it is vital to public confidence.
Scottish local government faces a very important challenge, as it has in future to exist alongside a democratically elected Scottish Parliament. Over the past 20 years, Scottish local government has provided an important democratic protection for the people of Scotland, and the public services on which they depend, against a hostile and interfering centre in Whitehall. That is changing. Local government will now have to form a new, constructive partnership with the Scottish Parliament, which will have its own strong democratic mandate. That is why the Government have set up the McIntosh commission, and its report will be delivered to the First Minister in the Scottish Parliament.
I have no doubt that the Labour party will lead the development of new and imaginative ways of ensuring that, in future, local government makes as important a contribution to Scottish public life as it has in the past, despite the problems that we have discussed today.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 113, Noes 322.

Division No. 306]
[10.14 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisely N)
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Ainger, Nick
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Alexander, Douglas
Browne, Desmond


Allen, Graham
Buck, Ms Karen


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Burden, Richard


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Burgon, Colin


Ashton, Joe
Butler, Mrs Christine


Atherton, Ms Candy
Byers, Stephen


Bank, Tony
Caborn, Richard


Barron, Kevin
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Bayley, Hugh
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Beard, Nigel
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Canavan, Dennis


Bennett, Andrew F
Cann, Jamie


Best, Harold
Casale, Roger


Betts, Clive
Caston, Martin


Blackman, Liz
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Chaytor, David


Borrow, David
Chasholm, Malcolm





Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Howells, Dr Kim


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncastwer N)


Clelland, David
Humble, Mrs Joan


Coaker, Vernon
Hurst, Alan


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hutton, John


Coleman, Iain
Iddon, Dr Brian


Colman, Tony
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Connarty, Michael
Jamieson, David


Cooper, Yvette
Jenkins, Brian


Corbett, Robin
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Cousins, Jim
(Welwyn Hatfied)


Cox, Tom
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Cranston, Ross
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jones Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Cummings, John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Dalyell, Tam
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Keeble, Ms Sally


Darvill, Keith
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kenndy, Jane (Wavertree)


Davies Geraint (Croydon C)
Khabra, Piara S


Dawson, Hilton
Kilfoyle, Peter


Denham, John
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Dismore, Andrew
Kingham, Ms Tess


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Donohoe, Brain H
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Doran, Frank
Leslie, Christopher


Dowd, Jim
Levitt, Tom


Drew, David
Linton, Martin


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Livingstone, Ken


Edwards, Huw
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Lock, David


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Love, Andrew


Fisher, Mark
McAllion, John


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McAvoy, Thomas


Fitzsimons, Lorna
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Flynn, Paul
Macdonald, Calum


Follett, Barbara
McDonnell, John


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Fyfe, Maria
McIsaac, Shona


Galbraith, Sam
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Galloway, George
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gapes, Mike
McLeish, Henry


Gardiner, Barry
McNamara, Kevin


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McNulty, Tony


Gerrard, Neil
MacShane, Denis


Gibson, Dr Ian
Mactaggart, Fiona


Godsiff, Roger
McWalter, Tony


Goggins, Paul
McWilliam, John


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Grant, Bernie
Mallaber, Judy


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Mandelson, Peter


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Grogan, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hain, Peter
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Martlew, Eric


Hanson, David
Maxton, John


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Meale, Alan


Healey, John
Merron, Gillian


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Michael, Alun


Hepburn, Stephen
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Heppell, John
Milburn, Alan


Hesford, Stephen
Miller, Andrew


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Mitchell, Austin


Hill, Keith
Moffatt, Laura


Hoey, Kate
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Home Roberttson, John
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Morley, Elliot


Hope, Phil
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mudie, George


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Mullin, Chris


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)






Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
Soley, Clive


Norris, Dan
Southworth, Ms Helen


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Speller, John


O'Hara, Eddie
Squire, Ms Rachel


Olner, Bill
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


O'Neill, Martin
Steinberg, Gerry


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Pearson, Ian
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Pendry, Tom
Stinchombe, Paul


Perham, Ms Linda
Stott, Roger


Pickthall, Colin
Stringer, Graham


Pike, Peter L
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Plaskitt, James
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Pollard, Kerry
(Dewsbury)


Pond, Chris
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Pope, Greg
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pound, Stephen
Timms, Stephen


Powell, Sir Raymond
Tipping, Paddy


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Todd, Mark


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Touhig, Don


Primarolo, Dawn
Truswell, Paul


Prosser, Gwyn
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Turner, Dr Desmond (kemptown)


Radice, Giles
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Raynsford, Nick
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Robertson, Rt Hon George
Walley, Ms Joan


(Hamilton S)
Ward, Ms Claire


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Wareing, Robert N


Rooker, Jeff
Watts, David


Rooney, Terry
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Roy, Frank
Wicks, Malcolm


Ruane, Chris
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Ruddock, Ms Joan
(Swansea W)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Savidge, Malcolm
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Sawford, Phil
Winnick, David


Sedgemore, Brian
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Woolas, Phil


Skinner, Dennis
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, Miss Geraldine
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
wyatt, Derek


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Mr. John McFall and


Snape, Peter
Mr. Jon Owen Jones.




NOES


Allan, Richard
Moore, Michael


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Oaten, Mark


Baker, Norman
Rendel, David


Ballard, Jackie
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Salmond, Aelx


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Sanders, Adrian


Fearn, Ronnie
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Stunell, Andrew


Hancock, Mike
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Harris, Dr Evan
Tyler, Paul


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Wallace, James


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Webb, Steve


Keetch, Paul
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Wills, Phil


Llvsey, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Llwyd, Elfyn
Mr. Donald Gorrie and


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Mr. Andrew Welsh.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, Put forthwith, Pursuant to standing Order No.31 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 274, Notes 31.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House notes with concern losses in a number of direct labour organisations within Scottish councils; and commends the swift action taken by the Secretary of State for Scotland to deal with them.

Council Tax (Derbyshire)

The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): I beg to move,
That the draft Council Tax Limitation (Derbyshire County Council) (Maximum Amount) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.
It will be useful if I set out how we hope to reinvigorate local government and what our future approach to capping will be. This year marks a watershed in our approach to local government finance, as it will be the last year of crude and universal capping. We are making changes because we believe that the current system has the balance between central Government and local government wrong. The turnout figures in the local elections in May underline the need for change. Under the current arrangements, local accountability is simply not strong enough, and the use of central Government's powers is disproportionate to achieving their objectives.
Our plans are a key to the future decisions of councils such as Derbyshire and reflect our desire to develop strong, effective and accountable local government. That is essential, because local government is responsible for so many of our most important services, such as schools, transport and care of the elderly. It is also essential to our aim to work with local government to lay the foundations for stable economic growth and to improve people's quality of life.
Many hon. Members will know that we have published a series of consultation papers aimed at establishing modern, accountable local government based on simple and stable finance systems that reflect the leadership role of councils and their partnerships with local communities. Our proposals include replacing crude and universal capping; making it easier for people to understand the link between their council's spending decisions and the council tax bills that they receive; giving people a greater say in local decisions; and helping councils to act more strategically and corporately, and to achieve better value for money. Detailed proposals on those matters will be published in a White Paper in the summer.
Although we are determined to improve local accountability, central Government still have an interest in the level of local government spending, because local authorities are responsible for a significant proportion of overall public spending and deliver a number of key services.

Mr. John Gummer: We are discussing Derbyshire local government. Would the Minister have supported the previous Government in capping at the lowest level ever, as she is proposing, or will she come to that in her speech?

Ms Armstrong: I shall explain why the Government have made these decisions.
The Government will retain a reserved power to control excessive increases in local council spending. However, with a more accountable system of local government in place, we hope that reserved powers to intervene in local budgetary decisions will be used rarely, if at all.
We are committed to a fair distribution of Government grant to local authorities. This year's settlement was a start in achieving that goal. It is better in cash terms than


many authorities expected based on last year's plans. We have allowed a 3.8 per cent. increase in provision for local government revenue spending nationally, which is double what the previous Government planned.
The amount available for local authorities includes an additional £835 million for education nationally, which has been fully funded by matching grant to authorities. That shows our commitment to improving standards. We have been able to increase resources for social services nationally by £447 million, which is almost £100 million more than was envisaged by the previous Government. We have also provided an extra £70 million for children's services, which is the first substantial increase for three years.

Mr. Eric Pickles: If the hon. Lady has given extra resources—figures supplied by the Library show that an extra £1 million was provided for education in Derbyshire schools—why is she proposing to take away £1 million?

Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman has got his figures confused. I am dealing with the local government settlement, whereas he is referring to education money under the new deal, which is for capital spending outside the local government settlement. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not understand that.
The capping principles for 1998-99 allowed all authorities budgeting up to 12.5 per cent. above their standard spending assessment to passport the increases for all non-police service blocks in the spending assessments. If an authority's SSA increased by more than its class permitted increase, its cap reflected that greater amount—so the money could be spent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We are discussing Derbyshire. The hon. Lady is entitled to a lead-in, but she must restrict her comments to the issue of Derbyshire.

Ms Armstrong: I am aware of that, which is why I have been hesitant about taking interventions. I know that you want me to deal with the Derbyshire issue, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, it is important to put the Derbyshire decision in context.
It is the first time that increases in highway maintenance, other services and capital financing blocks have been passported. Those were important changes in the capping regime, and they gave greater discretion to local authorities.
In the past seven years of crude and universal capping, 49 authorities exceeded their caps. This year, only one authority—Derbyshire—has set a budget above its capping limit. As a result, when we announced our decision on the capping principles on 7 April, we designated Derbyshire for council tax capping. It challenged its cap—as the legislation allows it to do—and proposed that it should be permitted to budget at the level that it originally set.
In reaching a view on the final capping limit for Derbyshire, we had to take account of its specific circumstances. We have considered those carefully, and I have met a delegation from Derbyshire to hear its case in

detail. I am sure that, during this debate, we shall hear of the efficiencies that Derbyshire has achieved. It is extremely important that authorities pursue efficiency gains, as that will help and enable them to provide the best services at lowest cost.
Capping is about whether the cap proposed for that authority is reasonable, achievable and appropriate. The fact that an authority claims to be efficient is not, of itself, a justification for it to take a larger slice of the cake of general Government expenditure. The demands of individual authorities must be examined in the context of the demands of all authorities, and those of the economy as a whole. That is why I felt it appropriate to explain the background of the debate.
Derbyshire county council has set a budget of nearly £473 million, £3.9 million above its proposed cap. As I said, I met members of the council, and a number of Derbyshire Members of Parliament, so that they could explain their reasons. Among the Members of Parliament was my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). I am delighted to hear that he is now out of hospital. I pay tribute to his diligent attention to the needs of his constituents, and to the fact that he has put their case so strongly. Several of my other hon. Friends have been to see me, and have also pursued the interests of their constituents with incredible diligence.
The Deputy Prime Minister and I have carefully considered all the relevant information available to us, and have decided that we should permit Derbyshire to increase its budget relative to its provisional cap by £2.9 million, rather than the full £3.9 million proposed by the authority. There are a number of factors which I believe make Derbyshire a special case, and which therefore warrant the increase.
Derbyshire has had the eighth smallest capping increase of any county in 1998–99, at 3.1 per cent.—compared with the average of 3.7 per cent. Since 1989–90, it has had a smaller cumulative increase in its cap than any other county. The increase in Derbyshire's education standard spending assessment represents nearly all its total capping head room. In short, if it passported all its increase in education SSA through to schools, it would have only a 0.25 per cent. increase for all other services. Derbyshire has no significant reserves with which to support its budget.
I stress that it is the combination of those factors, rather than any one in isolation, that makes Derbyshire's position unique. We decided against allowing the county to increase its budget against its provisional cap by the full amount of its actual budget. Among other things, its budget is above SSA by more than the county average. That suggests that there is scope for the council, within existing resources, to give more to education by reordering its priorities. The overall effect should be to allow Derbyshire to passport the full increase in its education SSA, and to increase its take-up of the education standards fund. We have carefully considered the points raised by Derbyshire in the capping process to ensure that the cap that we have proposed is reasonable, appropriate and achievable.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Minister tell us when she first learned that the estimated


cost of rebilling had gone down from £550,000 to £320,000? When was her Department first made aware of that?

Ms Armstrong: I do not know when the Department was first made aware of it, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman to let him know.
I have highlighted the particular combination of factors that, in our view, make Derbyshire a special case this year. We believe that those factors justify this treatment. However, it is clear to the Government that Derbyshire now needs to take more determined steps to address its budget. Over the coming months, we expect it to put in place a firm medium-term strategy to manage its finances in a way that will avoid excessive council tax increases in the future. That will clearly mean making some tough decisions to reorder priorities, as well as setting challenging targets for efficiency gains. The county will need to do more to manage its expenditure from year to year if its council tax payers are not to face unreasonable increases. Were that the case, the Government would step in to limit increases in budgets that were, in their view, excessive. We will also want to consider whether to use our powers to treat authorities that were designated in the preceding year differently from other authorities within the same class.
More generally, the Government will continue to take a rigorous approach to all sectors of public spending, including local authority expenditure. It will be essential that local authorities also take a responsible approach to their spending budgets. Next year, the Secretary of State will have in reserve powers to limit council tax within the current legislation. He will not hesitate to use those powers where he believes that authorities have set excessive budgets.
If the order is approved, we shall serve a statutory notice on Derbyshire formally setting its cap. It will have 21 days to reduce its budget in line with its cap and to set a lower precept. That will lead to the issue of new lower council tax bills by the Derbyshire billing authorities. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. David Curry: I am sure that we would all wish to join the Minister in wishing the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) a rapid recovery.
It was with some nostalgia that I listened to those marvellous words "reasonable", "appropriate" and "achievable", having used them so often and knowing that they have a ritualistic character in this debate; they save the Minister from judicial challenge at a later stage. I was interested that she began with a debate on the six, I think, Green Papers on local government as, up to now, we have been denied a debate on those in the House, despite their enormous importance. Not one was introduced by a statement in the House, but I hope that her words are in earnest of the good intention to give us a proper opportunity in Government time to debate crucial proposals affecting local government. I note simply that the largest Green Paper was on ethical behaviour in local government, which was six times the size of the paper on capital finance and a future financing system.
The Minister gave the particular reasons why she thought that Derbyshire is a special case, but, with all due respect to her, those were mechanical reasons that flow

from her decisions on standard spending assessments; there was nothing unusual about them. Had she taken different decisions on SSAs and made different changes to them, that would have affected Derbyshire's position. It is not an exceptional condition. It flows automatically from the decisions that she has taken.
Of course, I do not ideologically object to capping; that would be somewhat curious as I have, as it were, been there and got the tee-shirt for doing it myself. The arguments about public expenditure are real enough. The chapter on it in the relevant Green Paper has a familiar ring. Indeed, I suspect that I frequently said the same words. Even in the little document that is snappily called "A Plain English Guide to the Local Government Finance Settlement", under the heading "Capping" we find the words:
Local government spending is part of the total of general Government expenditure, so the Government need to limit how much local authorities spend.
Local authorities will be interested in the Minister's words. The last few pages of her speech were devoted to a fairly fearsome warning about how the Government intend to apply capping if local governments do not behave according to her definition. Of course, she would use the legislation that the previous Government put in place to do that because capping is not a duty; it is facultative. The legislation remains on the statute book. The Government have the option simply of not applying it—of not setting capping criteria—but, of course, if they really wished to send a signal to local government that they want to get away from the old system, they would repeal our legislation. They clearly do not intend to do so.
Therefore, when Labour says that it will end crude and universal capping, one wonders where the sophisticated and particular capping will arise. When the Minister talks about the cap relating to excessive spending, we wonder whether this is excessive spending. Is £1 million in a budget of £471.7 million an excessive increase? It seems curious for the people of Derbyshire to be told that there are particular circumstances—with which I do not agree, but which she has adumbrated—and that this is peculiar to Derbyshire.
Derbyshire is now permitted to spend £2.9 million over the budget that Ministers initially thought was necessary for it to meet its statutory obligations. However, its budget is being capped to prevent a mere £1 million of £471 million of expenditure. In other words, if my calculations are correct—I was never in the Treasury, so I may be corrected on them—its budget will be cut by 0.21 per cent., which is the smallest amount that has ever been caught by a cap.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) said, a couple of months ago, Derbyshire received an extra £1.1 million to reduce class sizes. Although of course that was part of the education budget, and of course it was capital, verily it is said that "the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away".
So what happens now? There will be rebilling, which is done by the districts—which, initially, send out the bills. I am told that, by some mysterious alchemy, the cost of rebilling will be reduced from £500,000 to £300,000. That £300,000 would have paid many teachers' salaries, and paid for many local authority activities, school meals and many other things that are probably regarded as important by the people of Derbyshire.


Nevertheless, there will be a bonus: local people will have money handed back to them. Undoubtedly, they will rejoice mightily at that bonus.
The county of Derbyshire has many band A properties. According to my research, 66 per cent. of properties in Bolsover are band A, as are 56.7 per cent. of properties in Chesterfield, 43.7 per cent. in North-East Derbyshire and 40.4 per cent. in Amber Valley. Even in the Derbyshire dales—which I suppose must be regarded as the most propertied part of Derbyshire, as it has the fewest properties at the bottom end—bands A to C still account comfortably for more than 50 per cent. of properties. It is therefore worth asking quite what will be the big bonus that is handed back.
My calculations—on which, again, I stand to be corrected—show that the consequence of the Government's action for band A property holders in Bolsover—where, we have agreed, two thirds of property holders hold band A properties—will be the great bonus of a £2.87 rebate. I have been told that that sum will buy an inexpensive packet of 20 cigarettes. In the House of Commons Bar, one can buy two pints of beer for that sum—but, as we all know, beer is relatively cheap in the House of Commons Bar.
The objective of all that paraphernalia and rigamarole—£300,000 or £500,000 will be spent on rebilling—is to rebate £2.87 to the citizens of Bolsover, Chesterfield and the other districts. That is the cost of financial probity, and the reward for the Government's actions.
The capping order is not the important issue. The Government could have changed the system—they have been in power now for well over a year. Although they have made perhaps only one local authority settlement in their own right, they are now on their second settlement. The Government have had control of the standard spending assessment system. Local government is almost universally under Labour control, and, for the moment, the Local Government Association does not say boo to a goose. Ministers could have altered the system, but they have stayed with it.
In the future, we will have the "brand new system". However, anyone who reads the Government's documents on the matter will wonder where the new dawn is, and when it will arrive. We have heard that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has rejected the idea of changing the definitions of public expenditure. Now we have old-fashioned rigorous capping, although I suspect that it is only a gesture, as Ministers could not allow anyone to get away with it completely. The cap is the iron Chancellor's little gesture towards local government, warning it about what might come. He is perhaps thinking, "Gosh, £1 million off Derbyshire's budget of £471 million won't half make them wonder. That will really get them bothered."
The cap is only a precursor of what is to come. The Minister for Local Government and Housing talked about the new system which we will be getting, and about getting away from all that terrible old capping problem and entering a new world. If one reads about what that new world will comprise, it quickly becomes clear that it will not include repatriation of business rates, as that would of course have implications for public expenditure.
Nor will it include giving everyone—lock, stock and barrel—the power to raise taxation locally, as that, too, would have implications for public expenditure.
There has been an awful lot of talk about, "Let's have annual elections. No one can sleep easily in their beds at night, or feel that they have had a good run at delivering what local people perhaps want them to deliver."
The Labour Government still deeply distrust local government. They believe fundamentally that they must keep control in their own hands. What we are asked to consider tonight is merely an aperitif, an amuse-gueule before the feast that is to come—the feast of continued Government control.

Judy Mallaber: I am rather confused by the previous contribution, as I was by the remarks and questions of the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), who I understand is summing up tonight, since the announcement was made last week. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us whether the Opposition are now saying that the Government have not given enough to Derbyshire. If they are, why were they previously arguing that Derbyshire should not ask for anything more? That is the question that the Opposition now need to answer.
Does the hon. Member for West Derbyshire support the potential loss of 440 jobs—including those of 70 teachers—the closure of homes, and the threatened closure of the Lea centre in his constituency? If he does not, does he support the Government's allowing us to get off the horrible hook on which we found ourselves? Perhaps he will also tell us what proposals his Conservative colleagues on Derbyshire county council had to enable the council to operate within its budget within the cap, without causing the horrendous consequences for education and other services that we have been seeking to avoid.
During business questions last week, the interesting suggestion was made that the Members of Parliament for Derbyshire would not welcome this debate. I have to say that that is completely wrong, just as the current Conservative Tory Member of Parliament with a Derbyshire constituency and our Conservative predecessors who lost their seats were wrong to denigrate the county over the years and to encourage the Conservative Government to do us down and act against the interests of their constituents.
We welcome the chance to be positive tonight, as we have spent some time in doom and gloom. We have a beautiful county, and the county council has undertaken many excellent initiatives, in spite of the difficulties and in spite of the denigration that it faced.
I apologise to those hon. Members who have had to stay late tonight and who might not have wanted to do so. We might owe them an explanation. I also apologise to Ministers who have had to spend a long time talking to us and considering the arguments. We are grateful that they have listened to us with care and have gone some considerable way to meeting our concerns.
Reference was made to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for North—East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) is not here. We are sorry that he is not here, but a recent question of his summarises one of the problems. He asked


what percentage of UK taxpayers pay the higher rate of taxation. The answer is that, overall, 8.1 per cent. of UK taxpayers do, whereas only 5 per cent. of Derbyshire's taxpayers are in the higher tax bracket. In Hertfordshire, the figure is 15.2 per cent., or three times higher, yet Hertfordshire gets central Government grants that allow it to spend £76 more per head on its residents than Derbyshire can. That goes to the heart of the problem that we face.
Considered since 1989, Derbyshire's capped spending is now 18 per cent. less than the average for all counties, and its increase was more than 6 per cent. below the next lowest increase. There have been cuts of £200 million in its budgets, and 4,500 employees have lost their jobs over that period. That has led to an annual cost of £4.2 million in redundancy and retirement payments. Our pupil-teacher ratio has declined from being one of the best in the country to being one of the worst. The same has happened to our home help ratios.
I was interested to read in The Times Educational Supplement a couple of weeks ago about the threat to school music services. Those discretionary services went in Derbyshire in 1991. We have been left with no reserves, so we are in a unique position.

Mr. John Hayes: rose—

Judy Mallaber: I shall not give way. Many hon. Members wish to speak, and I am keen to make progress.
Over that period, Tory Members have gloated, as we saw in the debate on local government finances. There were many good changes in that settlement, but the changes that have started to redress some of the unfairness in the local government system did not help us in Derbyshire. We faced difficult cuts that would have been impossible to meet.
Some positive schemes were under threat as a result of the budget that we were set. The head teacher of one school in my constituency who lobbied us came from Hampshire. If he had still been there, he would have had £300,000 more for his school and fewer statemented children. The Employment Sub-Committee, of which I am a member, is looking at pathways to work for women. We shall say that education and training are as important as child care in enabling lone parents, for example, to make the jump from welfare to work. Peverel house in Codnor has 130 women on computer and keyboard skills courses that will enable them to get back to work. It also has other facilities, including nursery facilities and youth facilities, used in the evenings by 80 young people a week. It was under threat of closure. We hope that that will be reversed.
My Select Committee is also responsible for investigating the new deal. I have been told by the new deal adviser at Heanor job centre, which is in a pathfinder area, that many people with basic skills problems are still presenting themselves. One of the nearby secondary schools has an excellent literacy and numeracy programme, for which it has gained national plaudits. I found it heartening to see a 13-year-old who had had difficulties with reading being able to read the announcement about the award and talk about it. That was thanks to the special programme. Such programmes are vital if we are to make advances.
In some cases, parts of the Government's programme would have been jeopardised by the cuts that Derbyshire is facing. The Government have recognised our class size

problem and given us a substantial sum to cut infant class sizes. Last January, 13,000 infants in Derbyshire were in school classes of more than 30. From next January, we shall have only 1,000. That is thanks to the first stage of the Government's recognition of our problems. If we had not been allowed the extra money, we would have added teachers to help five to seven-year-olds, but taken them away for seven to 11-year-olds, which would have been nonsense.
Derbyshire is an efficient authority. Council staff use 20 per cent. less than the county council average. We spend £23 per pupil on education and central support services for schools, which is 30 per cent. below the county council average.
We needed the additioal money to put ourselves on a proper footing for the future. We can go forward to make our arguments in the review of local government finance to ensure that we do not get into the same position again. The council can address the issues in conjunction with the review.

Sir Paul Beresford: When the hon. Lady talks about extra money, does she mean the £2.9 million or the £3.9 million that she campaigned for?

Judy Mallaber: We are grateful for the £2.9 million. We hope to be able to access some of the other money.
I am sure that the hon. Member for West Derbyshire will talk about rebilling. We should remember that he voted for that ridiculous system. We are landed with Tory legislation. I did not vote for it and neither did my hon. Friends the Members for Erewash (Liz Blackman), for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) and for High Peak (Mr. Levitt), but our predecessors did and they lost their seats. We would prefer not to have such legislation, but we do.

Mr. McLoughlin: rose—

Judy Mallaber: The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to reply. He voted for a £1 million rebilling charge in 1990. That will cost £1 per household.
Will the hon. Gentleman name a single school in his constituency that does not welcome Derbyshire's decision to go through the cap? Let him name a single school that does not welcome the Government's decision. I recently met the chairman of education on Derbyshire county council, who told me that he would happily visit such a school or talk to any parents in west Derbyshire who do not welcome the decision. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's answers will tell us whether the residents of Derbyshire agree that the Government and the county council have done the right thing.
Does the hon. Member for West Derbyshire support the loss of 440 jobs, the loss of 70 teachers, the closure of centres? Are the Opposition saying that the Government should have spent more or that the county council should not have asked for anything? I am very confused about their position and would welcome some clarification. If they are opposing the order, is it because we have not been given enough or because we have been given something?
In Derbyshire, we are grateful that Ministers have listened to our arguments. Obviously, we are disappointed that we did not get the full amount. Although there are


still difficult decisions to take, the settlement fends off the worse of the disasters and gives us a base on which to build. The Government have recognised our case in providing money for reducing infant class sizes and for school buildings. They have recognised our case in allowing us to go through the cap. We can now talk about how to get a fair settlement for the future, which will resolve the problems and not leave Derbyshire lagging behind other authorities in such a difficult position.
Parents and others in the county know whom to blame for the difficulties that the county council has had over the years. They now know whom to thank for the recent decisions and the ability to enter into discussions in future. Although I am disappointed that Derbyshire did not receive the full amount, I shall happily support the Government in the Lobby.

11 pm

Mr. Adrian Sanders: I associate the Liberal Democrats with the best wishes that have been sent to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). We look forward to his return.
It is extremely regrettable that we must discuss the capping of Derbyshire county council's revenue budget. The fact that we are shows how far this Labour Government are prepared to go to implement a Conservative agenda; how much they are prepared to say one thing in opposition and do exactly the opposite in power.
In opposition, the Labour party consistently opposed capping of local authority budgets. In 1993, the then hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said:
The Labour party is wholly and unequivocally opposed to the capping of a council's budget. It is an abuse of central power, it demeans democracy, it undermines the right of local people to decide what services they are ready and willing to pay for … it serves no economic purpose, and it has not worked in its own terms."—[Official Report, 9 June 1993; Vol. 226, c. 385.]
I could not put the arguments against capping more eloquently.
In 1995, a Labour party policy statement on local government said:
The present capping arrangements suggest that some civil servants or Minister in Whitehall knows better than local people and local councillors about the depth, degree and urgency of the needs of each and every local community and its capacity to pay for what it needs. This can't be right in principle or practice.
Just two years later, we find ourselves with a Government formed by the Labour party which, in its election manifesto, said:
Although crude and universal council tax capping should go, we will retain reserve powers to control excessive council tax rises".
In office, they implement exactly the crude and universal capping that they promised to end.

Mr. Mike Hancock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the chance to intervene—unlike the Minister, who would not. Like you, I share the sentiment that an overwhelming majority in the House support the views exposed by the then hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). What do you think—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Member has been in the House long enough to know whom to address.

Mr. Hancock: I apologise. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) is as curious

as I am to find out what impediment stood in the way of the large Government majority doing something about the unfortunate capping regime.

Mr. Sanders: I am sure that the Minister, who is a believer in open government, will comprehensively answer that later.
I find it even more regrettable that the Government are imposing a cap on Derbyshire's budget only two weeks after the end of their consultation on reform of local government finance.
In the Green Paper, "Modernising Local Government—improving local financial accountability", the Government state that modernising local government is dependent on radically changing the relationship between councils and their communities and between councils and the Government. They suggest that one way to achieve that is
to enhance local accountability, and reduce central government's involvement in local tax and spending decisions.
Can the Minister explain how she thinks that she is achieving that by interfering in Derbyshire's tax and spending decisions?
Even those of us who remain opposed to capping might have understood the Government's action if Derbyshire had set a budget £10 million or £20 million above cap, but it was set only £3.9 million above cap, and the Government appear to have agreed that £2.9 million of that was needed. We are here tonight because the Government cannot allow Derbyshire county council an extra £1 million, less than 0.25 per cent. of Derbyshire's total revenue budget. If that is not central Government prescription and control run riot, I do not know what is. It is also regrettable that the Government think that spending an extra £1 million on public services is unacceptable when they have just announced £3.6 million for spin doctors in Whitehall—a strange sense of priorities by any standard.
The Liberal Democrat group on Derbyshire county council did not support the controlling Labour group's decision to set a budget above cap. It agrees that capping, crude or sophisticated, should go but believes that there were ways in which the council could have achieved savings and stayed in budget. It has no wish to inflict the cost of rebilling on council tax payers. Out of the £2.9 million gained by Derbyshire, £320,000 will have to be spent on rebilling every household. One could argue that the council is still £2.5 million better off so perhaps it is worth it. If that gamble had not paid off, the council would have had to cut services even further and the local community would have suffered.
The case that Derbyshire county council made in arguing for extra Government grants tells an all-too-familiar story in local government. Over the past nine years in Derbyshire, central Government have reduced the council's revenue budget by £214 million. Service closures include the school music service, the only local home for disabled people, a toy library and five homes for the elderly. Discretionary and clothing grants were abolished in 1996. Those cuts will hurt the most vulnerable, reinforce deprivation and perpetuate social exclusion.
Liberal Democrats have spent many years campaigning against the incompetence and inefficiency of Labour-run councils and we have no wish to become apologists for them. However, the fact that Derbyshire requested only


an extra £3.9 million, of which the Government concede that it needs £2.9 million, suggests that there may be a case. We intend to vote against the imposition of a cap on Derbyshire's budget because capping is an abuse of central power, demeans democracy and undermines the right of local people to decide what services they are willing to pay for.
In 2001, the people of Derbyshire will be able to pass judgment on the track record of their council. They could choose to pass a vote of no confidence in the council because of higher spending or to endorse its decision to fight for more money for its communities. More likely, most voters will not vote at all, confused about who is really responsible for spending decisions and concerned that, however they vote, central Government will set priorities and dictate community needs. People will not bother to make the detour to the polling booth on local election day. The Local Government Association recently conducted a MORI poll that showed that more than one third of people do not believe that voting in local elections makes a difference to local taxes or services. Will the Minister admit that her actions reinforce that view?
I hope that this is the last time that we are called to the Chamber to debate the capping of a local authority's budget. We should like the Minister's assurance that that is the case. The Government cannot continue their practice of promoting democratic renewal while constantly interfering in local spending decisions without rightly being accused of hypocrisy.
The Government have promised to provide greater freedoms for "well behaved" councils in their local government Bill. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House when we might expect to see that Bill. If they really believe in local democracy, they should give councils the freedom to raise taxes and to work with local communities to agree local service and spending priorities. If the local government Bill offers only more sophisticated versions of central Government control of local councils, the House will know that the promise of democratic renewal was all spin and no substance.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: We have just heard from the representative of the Liberal Democrat party, the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders), about the plight of my constituents, and it is a strange tale that he has told. When the controlling Labour group in Derbyshire decided, with my support and that of other Derbyshire Labour Members, to go through the cap because we felt that the county had been treated unfairly, what did the little band of Liberal Democrats on the council do? The Liberal Democrat representative has now informed us that they did not have the guts to challenge the Government to try to get more money.
Now that, through our efforts, we have an extra £2.9 million for the Derbyshire ratepayers, for more schools and all the other services, the hon. Gentleman has the cheek to come here and say that the Liberal Democrats are now complaining that that is not enough—although they did not want any more money in the first place. I like to challenge the Tories about hypocrisy, but that takes some beating.
It is not as if the Liberal Democrats do not usually find a way of saying, "Raise taxes." That is their usual ploy, but the Liberal Democrats in Derbyshire did not have the guts to say it, so we need no lectures from their Members of Parliament.
When the whole saga began, many years ago, we had the awesome experience of seeing a Tory Government come to the House with their revenue support grant settlement and Tory Members of Parliament from Derbyshire stand up in the Chamber and demand that the Minister should not give Derbyshire too much money. In all my years of experience, I had never before heard Members of Parliament saying, "Don't give us money for our schools and our kids, or for our welfare services." Yet the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) and his colleagues who represented Amber Valley and South Derbyshire at the time all used to jump up and condemn Derbyshire for asking for too much money. Today, however, the Tories are coming along to say the opposite.
On one such occasion I wanted to put Derbyshire county council's case in an Adjournment debate, to explain how the Tories had robbed it of £214 million—actually it was a bit less than that at the time, because they still had a few more years left in which to take away even more money. I thought that it was high time that someone put the county's case, which was a good one.
I got my Adjournment debate, and stood up to speak—I was on the Opposition Benches in those days—but I had got only one sentence out of my mouth before a Derbyshire Tory Member, who later became Government Deputy Chief Whip, demanded to intervene and stop the debate on a point of order. A Member gets only a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes to speak in an Adjournment debate anyway, but all that I managed was another couple of sentences before the Derbyshire Tories raised several more points of order. I still carried on, but I was not getting very far.
The Tories talk about wrecking things in the House of Commons, but what happened then was that one of the Tories called, "I spy Strangers," and called a Division in the middle of my Adjournment debate. It took them 20 minutes to vote and my whole debate was lost—and now they have the cheek to talk about democracy. All that I was trying to do—

Mr. Paul Tyler: rose—

Mr. Skinner: Sit down.

Mr. Tyler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Skinner: No, sit down, I have not got time. Other people want to speak.

Mr. Tyler: Does the hon. Gentleman not want to hear the truth?

Mr. Skinner: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in the House when that took place—

Mr. Tyler: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have two Members on their feet at the same time. Mr. Skinner.

Mr. Skinner: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in the House when that took place. He is one of those little Liberal Democrats; I do not know where he was at the time.
The Tories talk about democracy, but that night they destroyed my opportunity to put the case for Derbyshire. The case has persisted ever since. Then, we get a Labour Government: we demand more money from the settlement, we meet the various Ministers and Derbyshire county council sets a rate £3.9 million above the original settlement. I wanted £3.9 million and I made that clear to all the Ministers I met, but 1 have to take into account what my constituents are saying, and every single one—teachers and all the rest—has made it clear to me that half a loaf is better than no bread at all.
I have also had assurances from the county council that there will be no compulsory redundancies, which I had feared. I remember last year, when Somerset and Oxford were complaining about rate capping. I know that the reason for their complaints was that they knew that they would have to sack people if the cap went through, but that is not the case with Derbyshire. I have had assurances from the county council leadership and others, who have explained to me precisely how they have managed to find a little extra money here and there—I shall not go into the whys and wherefores—to enable them to manage the budget and to make it up to about £3.9 million.
I have to take into account the fact that, if I am a general complaining about what the Labour Government are doing, I have to have an army behind me in Bolsover, Amber Valley and West Derbyshire in order to be able to demand of the Government, "What are you going to do about it?" However, I have to tell hon. Members that what the people are telling me is that £2.9 million is not as much as they wanted, but it is the first time in the history of Derbyshire county council since 1981 that it has finished up with more money than was promised in the first place. They are telling me that, in 1981 under the Tories, in 1982 and on and on down the years, they failed to get the money, so I have to say that the settlement being debated tonight is not as good as I wanted, but it is better than a poke in the eye with a big stick. With a little shuffling of the pack, we shall be able to manage to run the budget.
To my hon. Friend the Minister I say, this is only part of the settlement—the rest has to come later. We have lost £214 million in the past 12 years under the Tories. We are having a job keeping our heads above water, which is one of the reasons why the council went through the cap. I say to my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench and to the Treasury Ministers who are not here tonight, but who are the most important people in these matters: I know that there is to be a three-year settlement, but the next time there is a settlement I do not want to have to go through the galling experience of having meeting after meeting with Ministers to get the additional money. I do not welcome the fact that we are here tonight. I want a better settlement for Derbyshire next time.
I hope that because, at long last, we are weaning ourselves away from the Tory spending plans and because the next Budget will be the most important in this Parliament, the Derbyshire settlement will take account of the fact that the Tories closed every single pit in the whole county. That has reduced our ability to find work for people and reduced the spending power of people in Derbyshire. The whole area was devastated by those pit closures, and we cannot afford to sustain the results of that for much longer. The social fabric is breaking down

in every town and village in the county, and the only way to put that right is to make sure that, next time, we get sufficient money to repair the social fabric and to start to provide employment again. The county council can play a role in that, which is why the next rate settlement will be important, not only for the other parts of the country that have suffered from this year's settlement, but for Derbyshire.

Mr. John Gummer: I wonder whether the House would have imagined the comments by the Minister for Local Government and Housing being made if the previous Government had proposed so narrow a cap in such circumstances. It is wrong in the House to talk about hypocrisy—

Ms Armstrong: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer: No, I shall not because I have only a very short time to speak. The hon. Lady did not answer the question that I directly asked her because she was unable to do so. She was not able to come to the real point, which is that this is the narrowest cap that we have had, and it is not a cap that she, in opposition—

Ms Armstrong: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer: No, I have only four minutes in which to speak, so that the hon. Lady may have time to sum up the debate.
The Minister did not get on to the Derbyshire settlement until she had told us a great deal about what could happen and should happen, but would not happen now. Are the Government in power or not? They have been in power for over a year. They could perfectly well have changed the system if they did not like it. Not only have they not changed it; they have introduced a cap that would not have been introduced under any previous Government. The Minister therefore wanted to avoid the question of the cap on Derbyshire for as long as she could, which is why we heard a lot of generalities before she got on to the question of Derbyshire. Indeed, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had to intervene to tell her that it was time that she got back to the question of Derbyshire. You were being polite—she had not started to talk about Derbyshire at that point.
I exculpate the Minister for her speech, having heard that of the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber). I hope that every person in Amber Valley reads that speech, because it was an example of what happens when a Government remove all independence from their Back Benchers. I cannot remember a single occasion on which I introduced a capping measure and a Member of Parliament for an area that I was capping made so toadying a speech. I used to get—to use a special word—hell from my colleagues when I introduced such capping measures. The hon. Lady takes the biscuit. I hope that people in every single home in her constituency read her speech—indeed, if I can manage it, I shall arrange that—because she will never win that seat again.
It is remarkable and sad that the hon. Lady did not mention that we are having this debate only because of the Opposition's pressure on the Government.


The Government wanted to have a private word upstairs. The hon. Lady would not then have had a chance to reveal herself to the House and the public as being totally uninterested in what happens in Derbyshire and deeply interested in what might happen to her in the future.

Mr. Tyler: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government wanted not only to take the matter in Committee, but to pack that Committee with hon. Members who have no connection whatever with Derbyshire, and that when it was suggested that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) should be added to that Committee, the Government resisted the idea?

Mr. Gummer: I am aware of that, which is why I could not understand the speech by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Can the House imagine the speech that the hon. Gentleman would have made if this had been a Conservative capping proposal? Can one imagine how he would have torn it apart? His rant would hardly have stopped by now. He would have said that to have so small a cap was intolerable; to have insisted that the money be spent not on schoolteachers but on demanding new bills was unacceptable, and that he and his friends in Derbyshire knew that this was a Tory plot. But did we hear a word of that?

Mr. Tom Levitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer: No; I will not.
The Minister would not have allowed me to get away with it, and I will not allow her to get away with it. I asked her a direct question—whether she would have supported my proposal of such a capping measure. She did not answer—because she would have opposed it root and branch. She would have voted against it, and it is a disgrace that she asks the House to vote for it, and an even greater disgrace that she had to be dragged to the House to discuss it at all. She wanted to get away with a little speech in a little Committee, packed with little Back Benchers who would not raise a voice against her. She is frightened of the House, as she has shown once again, because she cannot make her case and has not made her case—she deserves to be voted against.

Mr. Mark Todd: We have just heard a speech that hardly mentioned the capping order in question, and instead focused on abusing the Minister. I give the order a qualified welcome, because I oppose capping on principle; I have never supported it, and I find considerable difficulty in accepting its application this time around.
Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, two thirds of a loaf—as, roughly, it is—is rather better than none. I acknowledge that Ministers have done their best to respond to concerns of hon. Members, and of contingents from Derbyshire, pressing the county's case. It will be a test of the county's ingenuity to implement, within the budget, the full effect of the standard spending assessment increase given to the education service in Derbyshire. Nevertheless, I am confident, because of the record of Derbyshire county

council, that it will achieve that. It has shown originality and innovation in much worse circumstances, and I believe that it can respond to the challenge.

Mr. Levitt: Is my hon. Friend aware that £2.9 million is being given to Derbyshire in the context of £1.16 million under the standard spending assessment to address class size, £1,000 per school for books, money for capital spending in education and so on? That would never have existed under the Conservatives.

Mr. Todd: Indeed. Since the general election, there has been considerable Government largesse for Derbyshire, and that is welcome as a small step in redressing the legacy of 18 years of Conservative government. Tory malice toward Derbyshire was effectively admitted by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) in the previous debate on this subject, and it was conceded by the Deputy Prime Minister in responding to that debate.
Evidence of consistent attempts to find ways to tinker with the SSA to achieve a lower settlement for Derbyshire is obvious to all concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has drawn out one implication of that—that this is a first stage in responding to Derbyshire's concerns. It is a welcome first stage, which I shall support in the Lobby tonight, but it means, together with the Minister's strictures, which I accept, that the county must settle for managing within its budget this year and looking for ways of finding economies, which is always a duty on a local authority. It will also be a duty of that local authority to present, with hon. Members, a coherent argument for new ways of looking at the mechanism that provides resources to local government. It is clear to me that Derbyshire has faced settlements that are inappropriate in comparison with those for the leafy suburbs of the south-east—an imbalance that we should do our best to redress in future.
Without the extra space within the cap, libraries and a family support unit would have been closed. I was fortunate enough to spend most of last week in my constituency, when I visited, among other places, a family support unit. It provided detailed help for individual young people who were estranged from their family, and tried to support them through the education process in the worst circumstances. If one of those units closed, the young people would never be able to advance their education and might be in jeopardy. Such are the terrible choices that would be faced by the county.
I also spent time visiting youth centres across my constituency. Again, there would have been massive cuts in the youth service across Derbyshire to stay within the original cap. That service provides critical support for young people in our community, to keep them out of trouble and to provide them with pathways into education. Such services would have been lost, too.
There is much to celebrate in our record. The Audit Commission showed that Derbyshire's record in helping elderly people to stay in their own homes was second to none. That is one further steer on how the standard spending assessment should be reconsidered. I do not believe that that goal of the county, which is well met, is properly recognised in the current spending assessment.
Just think what we could do as a county with a proper and fair settlement that would bear comparison with the settlements of some of the authorities represented by Opposition Members. My optimistic message for the


future is that Derbyshire can beat the rest with a fair deal, and we shall continue to fight for it, but tonight we shall support the order.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I begin by wishing the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) a speedy recovery. Although I have disagreed with him on many occasions, I respect the fact that he always had the best interests of Derbyshire at heart when he spoke in the Chamber.
It is refreshing to hear Labour Members say how much they wanted this debate to take place. Only last week, for the first time ever, the Government were trying to get a capping motion through in Committee. Never before has a capping order been taken in Committee.

Ms Armstrong: Never before has there been one authority involved.

Mr. McLoughlin: I wish that the hon. Lady would check. There have been several occasions on which only one authority has been capped. She comes to the House badly briefed if that is what she thinks.
Every previous capping order has been taken on the Floor of the House. If the Government are so proud of what they are doing, why was the first question on the matter tabled by a Sunderland Member, and why was a question about the final decision tabled by a Kent Member? Are no Derbyshire Labour Members ever in the Chamber? Are they always in their constituency?
We have heard the excuses from the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), who said that he was in his constituency last week, so he was not available to table the questions. Sometimes it is not necessary to be physically present in the House to table questions. Hon. Members can table written questions.

Mr. Skinner: I do not put down planted questions.

Mr. McLoughlin: What about the other six Derbyshire Members?
We are here to discuss the Government's proposals. It is worth quoting from the Labour party manifesto, which states:
We will retain reserve powers to control excessive council tax rises.
I assume that the Government regarded what Derbyshire wanted to do as an excessive council tax rise. If Derbyshire Members support the Government tonight, they will be confirming that.

Judy Mallaber: No.

Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Lady says no, but how can she vote for the cap? The Government are introducing the cap because they believe that it is an excessive council tax rise. If they did not believe that, they would not try to cap Derbyshire county council. Perhaps Labour has some new logic. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) made clear, capping is a power of the Secretary of State, not a duty. The Government have assumed that duty.
The Government initially proposed to cap Derbyshire by £3.9 million. They have now changed their mind and will cap Derbyshire by £1 million, allowing it break through its cap by £2.9 million. I am wholly critical of the cynical way in which the Government are dealing with this issue. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon said, in order to stop Derbyshire spending £1 million out of a £470 million budget, the Government propose to reduce Derbyshire's spending by 0.21 per cent. That is what the Government are considering capping; that is an excessive council rise in new Labour speak. Let every council be aware of that for next year.
The cap will cost Derbyshire council tax payers some £320,000 according to the latest estimates. The first estimate submitted was £550,000. The Minister could not confirm when the Department was told that the figure had changed; I am surprised that no note has come from the Box. The figure that the county council has in its papers for tomorrow is £550,000. That would be sufficient to build extra classrooms at St John's school in Belper, which is grossly overcrowded, or it could go some way towards building a new school in Belper, which is desperately needed. It could be used to fund a study of the Ashbourne bypass or possibly to build a new primary school in Tansley.

Mr. Levitt: rose—

Mr. McLoughlin: I shall give way in a moment. Yesterday a group of parents from Wirksworth Church infants school delivered a petition to No. 10 Downing street protesting that the school is threatened with the loss of a teacher. That £320,000 could have paid for a teacher for the next 20 years.

Mr. Levitt: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that all the serious underfunding issues that he has listed have emerged in the past 12 months? Do they not relate to the period when the previous Government capped Derbyshire to the tune of £214 million over several years? Is he saying that he would have allowed Derbyshire to break through the cap completely to the level that it had planned?

Mr. McLoughlin: I shall come to that point shortly. I want to address the whole issue of capping in Derbyshire.
In its publicity, which it releases at regular intervals, the county council says that rebilling is the fault of the previous Government. This capping decision is the fault of this Government. It was said that we did not change the law. That is correct, but the Government do not have to use it. I reiterate that it is a power of the Secretary of the State, not a duty. The county council is being capped for only 0.21 per cent.—the smallest cap ever introduced.
The last time we debated capping in the House, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and the right hon. Members for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and, I suppose, the Minister—although I have not checked the record—voted against the cap. That made a difference of £112 to the average household. We were talking then of a reduction for each person of about £56 and, therefore, an average reduction for households of £112. This cap will make a difference,


on average, for the vast majority of households, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon said, of £2.87. In Amber Valley, 40 per cent of houses are in band A, as are 19 per cent. in High Peak and 30.9 per cent. in South Derbyshire. Those are facts in terms of reductions in those council areas. The proposed cap does not stand up to justification.
The way in which the Government wanted to take the matter through Committee was deplorable. It was clear that not one Labour Member representing a Derbyshire constituency would be a member of the Committee. None of them would have the chance.

Mr. Levitt: I would have been able to speak.

Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman says that he would have been able to speak, but he would not have been able to vote. Of what were the Government afraid?

Mr. Levitt: The argument was so persuasive.

Mr. McLoughlin: The argument was so persuasive!

Mr. Gummer: I wonder whether my hon. Friend will tell me what the Government would have been afraid of, given that when we heard Derbyshire Labour Members speak they supported the Government. They damned their county and supported the Government. Why did not the Government herd them in?

Mr. McLoughlin: I have to say—[Interruption.] It seems that the Minister is in favour of reforming the House of Commons. The Government are not content with reforming the other place; they want also to reform the House. Will their reform of this place mean depriving constituency Members of their votes? That is exactly what they tried to do last week. Is that what the Minister means by reforming the House of Commons? We shall watch these matters with interest.
The simple fact is that the motion is of the Government's making. There will be huge extra billing and all the Minister can do is laugh. That sums up the Government.

Mr. Levitt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McLoughlin: No. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I shall intervene extremely briefly. I find it extraordinary that a Conservative Member from Derbyshire, rather than a majority of Derbyshire Members on the Labour Benches, should have to speak in support of the council tax payers of Derbyshire. Why does my hon. Friend have to be doing this rather than Labour Members, who should be opposing their Government?

Mr. McLoughlin: Labour Members will have to answer for themselves.

Mr. Levitt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McLoughlin: No. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already. I want to deal with the points that he has made and other points. I know that the Minister wants time to respond to the debate. Therefore, I would like to make some progress.
It is a simple fact that £320,000 will be incurred in rebilling. That is about 32 per cent. of the sum by which the council is being ordered to reduce its expenditure. That would not have been so bad, but just a few weeks before the local elections we had an announcement from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment giving Derbyshire just over £1 million—the county rather than the city, which received a similar amount—yet we are discussing an order which would require the county council to reduce its expenditure by £1 million. That will cost £320,000 in rebilling. That money could be used—[Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position that I have said that five times. I might say it six or seven times, because we regard the £320,000 as a gross waste of public money resulting from a decision made by the Government.
The simple fact is that—[Interruption.] If the Minister for London and Construction wants to speak, I am sure that he will be able to catch your eye in due course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He should let hon. Members make their speeches, because he gets the chance to make his speeches. I realise that he is part of the bootleg tendency of the Government, unlike the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who reminded me of Boxer in "Animal Farm"—stick with it all the way, it is sure to get better. Even if the tune changes dramatically, he can be relied on to change his tune according to the music that is being played from the Government Front Bench. He was one of the people who refused to support a capping order of £112, but tonight he will support a capping order that will benefit most of his constituents to the tune of £2.87.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. The Tories and the Liberal Democrats on the county council refused to ask for more money from the Labour Government. The Labour people on the county council said, "Dennis, will you try to get more money from the Government?" We put in for £3.9 million and we have got £2.9 million. I said to the county council, "What do you think about that?" The council said, "It's not a bad deal—accept it."

Mr. McLoughlin: Excuses, excuses, excuses—the hon. Gentleman will support a proposal which will give £2.87 to 66 per cent. of households in his constituency. I have respect for the hon. Gentleman, but if he supports the Government he will be agreeing with them that the original budget set by the county council was excessive, because that is where council tax capping comes into being. That is what we are discussing—the Government's decision that the budget is excessive. [Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position that I am over my time. I am conscious of the time, but I have been interrupted a number of times and eight of the first 15 minutes of her speech did not relate to Derbyshire. We should have had a statement, rather than some of the—[Interruption.] The Minister should just calm down.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair will determine the equity of the debate.

Mr. McLoughlin: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but before the Minister was brought to order by the Chair to address the motion, she did not speak about Derbyshire for eight of the first 15 minutes of her speech.


In 18 years of Conservative government, Derbyshire county council was capped once. It will he capped once in one year of the new Labour Government—they have matched our record. At the general election, Labour Members representing Derbyshire constituencies and Labour candidates were not going around saying, "In one year, we will cap the county council as often as the Tories did in 18 years." That is why I shall not support the motion.

Ms Armstrong: We have had an interesting debate, but we do not know why the Opposition have taken their position—we still do not know their view on the budget for Derbyshire. The speech of the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) was something like a leadership bid—we know that the Tories are in trouble on their leader—and he certainly talked a great deal.
I must say to Conservative Members that we now know why debates after 10 pm frequently do not do the House any good. Debates are often conducted in a rabble-rousing manner. That characterises the Opposition this evening.
I shall answer some of the questions raised in the debate, even though the Opposition refused to answer any of the questions put to them. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) is clearly missing the job. Indeed, he writes so many articles about what I am up to I can hardly keep up with them. He said that Derbyshire's predicament arose from decisions that we had made. That is not so. I made it clear that one of the critical elements was the previous Administration's decision to reduce Derbyshire's increases year after year. That had a cumulative effect and it led to the position that we are in now. That problem was caused by the Conservative Government, not by us.
We are used to hearing the speeches of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), but he has clearly never read any of them. He showed us how he got into such trouble as Secretary of State. I hate to tell him this, but he got his facts wrong. The previous Administration capped eight authorities at less than £1 million—two of them were capped at £0.5 million.
The hon. Member for West Derbyshire exhibited the mentality that we have seen among the pathetic hooligans in France this week. [Interruption.] Being macho is all, and Conservative Members are at it again. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman took four minutes more than the allocated time. He accused me of being frightened of debating with hon. Members. I am not frightened: I want the opportunity to do so. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal and the hon. Member for West Derbyshire exhibited the behaviour and the mentality that bring this country into disrepute. They should grow up and learn how to debate effectively.
Labour Members did not use macho arguments, but dealt with the problems faced by schools, by folk who need community care and by others. They were prepared to discuss those issues, but no Conservative Member said a word about the people of Derbyshire and the problems that they face. We have had no apology from Conservative Members for the way in which they tried to sort out Derbyshire. The hon. Member for West Derbyshire has admitted that the previous Government focused on Derbyshire. We are having to deal with the problems that they created. We cannot resolve all of them in one year.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not realise that a manifesto covers five years, not one year. We shall be held to account at the end of five years.
The Liberal Democrats do not understand the concept of accountability. It means that people in the locality feel that it is worth while getting involved. Current and past local elections have shown that that is not happening, which is why we must change the relationship between central and local government. We must ensure that many more local people feel that the council is accountable to them.
We have had—as they say—an interesting debate. I believe that the Derbyshire Members who are concerned about the future of the county have made the case for it, but recognise the real problems that we face because of the way in which the previous Government dealt with public finances. I therefore do not hesitate to ask hon. Members to behave responsibly and to vote with the Government.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community Documents)?:—

The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 152.

Division No. 307]
[11.55 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Darvill, Keith


Ainger, Nick
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Donohoe, Brian H


Alexander, Douglas
Doran, Frank


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Dowd, Jim


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Drew, David


Atherton, Ms Candy
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Barron, Kevin
Edwards, Huw


Bayley, Hugh
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Beard, Nigel
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Bennett, Andrew F
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Best, Harold
Flynn, Paul


Blackman, Liz
Follett, Barbara


Borrow, David
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Fyfe, Maria


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Galloway, George


Browne, Desmond
Gapes, Mike


Burden, Richard
Gardiner, Barry


Burgon, Colin
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Godsiff, Roger


Canavan, Dennis
Goggins, Paul


Cann, Jamie
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Casale, Roger
Grant, Bernie


Caton, Martin
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Grogan, John


Chaytor, David
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hanson, David


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Healey, John


Clelland, David
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Coaker, Vernon
Hepburn, Stephen


Coffey, Ms Ann
Heppell, John


Coleman, Iain
Hesford, Stephen


Colman, Tony
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Connarty, Michael
Hill, Keith


Corbett, Robin
Hoey, Kate


Cousins, Jim
Home Robertson, John


Cox, Tom
Hope, Phil


Cranston, Ross
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cummings, John
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)






Humble, Mrs Joan
Pickthall, Colin


Hurst, Alan
Pike, Peter L


Hutton, John
Plaskitt, James


Iddon, Dr Brian
Pond, Chris


Jamieson, David
Pope, Greg


Jenkins, Brian
Pound, Stephen


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Prosser, Gwyn


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Rooney, Terry


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Roy, Frank


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Kilfoyle, Peter
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Savidge, Malcolm


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Sawford, Phil


Kingham, Ms Tess
Sedgemore, Brian


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Sheerman, Barry


Lawerence, Ms Jackie
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Leslie, Christopher
Skinner, Dennis


Levitt, Tom
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Linton, Martin
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Lock, David
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McAllion, John
Snape, Peter


McAvoy, Thomas
Soley, Clive


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Southworth, Ms Helen


McDonnell, John
Squire, Ms Rachel


McFall, John
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


McIsaac, Shona
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Stinchcombe, Paul


McNamara, Kevin
Stott, Roger


McNulty, Tony
Stringer, Graham


MacShane, Denis
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mactaggart, Fiona
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


McWalter, Tony
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


McWilliam, John
Timms, Stephen


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Tipping, Paddy


Mallaber, Judy
Todd, Mark


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Touhig, Don


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Truswell, Paul


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Maxton, John
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Merron, Gillian
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Michael, Alun
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Walley, Ms Joan


Milburn, Alan
Ward, Ms Claire


Miller, Andrew
Wareing, Robert N


Mitchell, Austin
Watts, David


Moffatt, Laura
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wicks, Malcolm


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Mudie, George
Winnick, David


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Norris, Dan
Woolas, Phil


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


O'Hara, Eddie
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


O'Neill, Martin
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pearson, Ian
Mr. Clive Betts and


Perham, Ms Linda
Mr. Graham Allen.




NOES


Allan, Richard
Bercow, John


Amess, David
Beresford, Sir Paul


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Blunt, Crispin


Arbuthnot, James
Body, Sir Richard


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Boswell, Tim


Baker, Norman
Brady, Graham


Baldry, Tony
Brazier, Julian


Ballard, Jackie
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Browning, Mrs Angela


Roy, Frank Ruddock, Ms Joan






Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Lidington, David


Burnett, John
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Burns, Simon
Loughton, Tim


Butterfill, John
Luff, Peter


Cable, Dr Vincent
MacKay, Andrew


Cash, William
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Chapman, Sir Sydney
McLoughlin, Patrick


(Chipping Barnet)
Malins, Humfrey


Chope, Christopher
Maples, John


Clappison, James
Mates, Michael


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Collins, Tim
May, Mrs Theresa


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Moore, Michael


Cran, James
Moss, Malcolm


Curry, Rt Hon David
Nicholls, Patrick


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Norman, Archie


Day, Stephen
Oaten, Mark


Duncan, Alan
Ottaway, Richard


Duncan Smith, Iain
Page, Richard


Evans, Nigel
Paice, James


Faber, David
Paterson, Owen


Fabricant, Michael
Pickles, Eric


Fallon, Michael
Prior, David


Fearn, Ronnie
Randall, John


Flight, Howard
Rendel, David


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Robathan, Andrew


Fox, Dr Liam
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Fraser, Christopher
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gale, Roger
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Garnier, Edward
Ruffley, David


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Gibb, Nick
Sanders, Adrian


Gill, Christopher
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Shepherd, Richard


Garrie, Donald
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gray, James
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Green, Damian
Soames, Nicholas


Greenway, John
Spicer, Sir Michael


Grieve, Dominic
Spring, Richard


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Streeter, Gary


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Stunell, Andrew


Hammond, Philip
Swayne, Desmond


Hancock, Mike
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Harvey, Nick
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hawkins, Nick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hayes, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Heald, Oliver
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Trend, Michael


Horam, John
Tyler, Paul


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Tyrie, Andrew


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Wallace, James


Hughes, Sirnon (Southwark N)
Wardle, Charles


Hunter, Andrew
Waterson, Nigel


Jenkin, Bernard
Webb, Steve


Johnson Smith,
Wells, Bowen


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Whittingdale, John


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Keetch, Paul
Willetts, David


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Willis, Phil


Key, Robert
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Woodward, Shaun


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Yeo, Tim


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Lansley, Andrew



Leigh, Edward
Tellers for the Noes:


Letwin, Oliver
Sir David Madel and


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Mrs. Caroline Spelman.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Council Tax Limitation (Derbyshire County Council) (Maximum Amount) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.

DEREGULATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),

METHYLATED SPIRITS SALE (SCOTLAND)

That the draft Deregulation (Methylated Spirits Sale by Retail) (Scotland) Order 1998 be approved. —[Mr. Jamieson.]

Question agreed to.

CRIME AND DISORDER BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)

Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to proceedings on the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords].

Report and Third Reading

1. (1) Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at two sittings and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion six and a half hours after commencement of proceedings at the second sitting.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings for any part of the period of six and half hours after commencement which falls after Ten o'clock.

Business Committee

2. Standing Order No. 82 (Business committee) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.

3. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings on the Bill are taken, but the resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in that order.

Conclusion of proceedings

4. (I) For the purpose of concluding any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by or under this Order, the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—


(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour.

(3) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(4) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under sub-paragraph (1)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

Miscellaneous

5. If at any sitting a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over from an earlier day or to Seven o'clock—

(a) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion, and
(b) paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill for the period after Ten o'clock for which sub-paragraph (a) permits them to continue.

6. If a Motion is made by a Minister of the Crown to amend this Order and an effect of the Motion would be to provide a greater amount of time for proceedings on the Bill, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour.

7. If a Motion is made by a Minister of the Crown to supplement the provisions of this Order in respect of further proceedings on the Bill, the Motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, at any hour and the proceedings, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion three-quarters of an hour after they have been commenced.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

A27 (Sompting to Shoreham)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Mr. Tim Loughton: As the mass exodus of hon. Members from the Chamber will demonstrate, the subject of safety of children on the stretch of the A27 between Shoreham and Sompting is not necessarily of universal interest—although the wider implications of road safety, especially for children, certainly are of interest to all hon. Members. In my constituency, for my constituents, the subject of road safety is literally a matter of life and death.
I am grateful to the Minister for Transport in London, who cannot attend this debate, as she has taken an active interest in the subject, and recently visited my constituency to investigate our problem at first hand. I am grateful also for the input provided by Lady Hayman. My sympathies perhaps go to the Minister for London and Construction for having to stand in for his colleague in this debate. I shall therefore not start my speech by saying, "The Minister is undoubtedly aware of the problems on that particular stretch of the A27." Moreover—for once in dealing with the A27—I shall not be majoring on the issue of the Worthing bypass, which, although it is a very large issue, is another matter entirely.
As the south coast corridor, the A27 intersects my constituency, dividing the downs from the sea. It is the main trunk road between Folkestone and Honiton, and takes a great deal of through freight. It has also become much busier since completion of the Southwick tunnel a couple of years ago, and traffic is increasing. The road divides the villages of Sompting and Lancing—which has the distinction of being the largest village in England.
The problem is that, right on the edge of the A27 is the Boundstone community college, which is the secondary school serving Sompting, Lancing and beyond. Frankly, it is a pretty bad place to site a major school such as this. The problem is that, on the eastern approach to the school, the road hits a blind bend. From the western approach, the school is situated just beneath the brow of a hill.
A child starting at Boundstone community college who lives in the north of Lancing or Sompting is likely to cross the road no fewer than 3,000 times in his school career, just to get to school and home again. The chances of any child having an accident are therefore quite high. Today, one can drive on motorway or fast, motorway-standard road virtually all the way from Newcastle to within just a mile of the school. Then, in the area immediately before the school, the speed limit becomes, officially, 40 mph. The problem is that that limit is not adhered to.
Over the past 11 or so years, there have been as many deaths on this stretch of road—an average of one fatality a year. In February 1997, Scott Purdie, a 13-year-old pupil of Boundstone community college, was killed on the pelican crossing outside the school while going to or from home for lunch. A few months later, a grown man from Lancing was knocked down and killed in broad daylight crossing the stretch of road just along from the school.
On 14 January this year, a public meeting was held at Boundstone community college. At that meeting, which I attended, we heard moving accounts from the mothers of two children who had been killed on that road, including

the mother of Scott Purdie. That meeting was the culmination of much hard work and campaigning over many years by the school and the community.
In the community, many petitions have been completed, and parents have recently staged many demonstrations. Much hard work has been done by Adur council—especially by the council leader whose ward borders the school—by Sompting parish council, by Adur youth council, by the police and emergency services and by West Sussex county council. I must praise the county council for its excellent recent publication—the road casualty reduction plan—which contains some very interesting proposals.
As with most of the A27, the stretch of the road in question is now the responsibility of the Highways Agency. There is a feeling in my constituency that the Highways Agency is a rather remote body, as the office that has responsibility for this stretch of the road is in Dorking. To give the agency its due, a representative turned up at the public meeting, but since then the agency has, alas, declined my invitations to make a site visit, despite the promise of a meeting by one of the Ministers who has taken an interest.
The agency has instituted several minor measures, such as improving some of the road markings and providing a few extra school signs, but as I drove past the school this weekend, I noticed that some of the new signs are obscured by bushes that overhang the road. A little work has also been done on the crash barriers along the road.
Within weeks of the public meeting in January, a 12-year-old girl was knocked down near the pelican crossing and taken to hospital. Fortunately, she was not that seriously hurt, and she survived. Still, the road is an accident waiting to happen. Statistically, I fear that we are now due for another serious accident.
In Sussex, we like to think that we are untypical, a cut above other shire counties. Alas, the traffic accident figures in our county are not untypical. In 1997, there were more than 600 casualties in the county, an increase of 5 per cent. over the previous year despite the increased congestion on our roads. Of that 600, 360 were pedestrian casualties, including 101 people who were killed or seriously injured. Some 34 per cent. of those cases involved children under the age of 16, and 89 per cent. of pedestrian accidents were on roads where the speed limit was 40 mph or less. A third of the fatalities occurred on bends, and 22 per cent. of the accidents involved cars being driven at excessive speed for the prevailing conditions.
The figures have remained fairly constant for some years. It is difficult to understand how the traffic accident levels will reach the Government's target in 2000, which is based on the average for 1981–85, particularly given that road activity in the county over the past 16 years has increased by 54 per cent. All the dangerous elements that I have mentioned are pertinent to that stretch of the A27, combining to make it one of the most dangerous accident black spots in the county, if not the country.
What can be done? The Highways Agency has just tinkered and talked about safety surveys. We urgently need substantive action. Suggestions made at the public meeting included an overhead walkway or an underpass. Those are well-intentioned ideas, but they will take a lot of time and money, and there will be problems with siting


them and in deciding what land should be used. Moreover, children cannot be forced to use an underpass or overhead walkway.
I have mentioned road markings, anti-skid surfaces and crash barriers, but they are not enough. There is also the possibility of moving the traffic lights, but that would make it even less likely that the children would use them.
The key is education of the children. I welcome the work of the local education authority and the health authority on that. However, I favour the easy and quick option of accident black spot signs, which should be alarming and striking. We could have flashing signs, such as those used in France, which have been tested in the west country. We need more advanced signs that are not obscured by bushes. We could also change the timing on the traffic lights to make them respond more quickly, provided that they do not constantly stop the traffic.
The most important proposal that I should like the Minister to take up is speed cameras. We have just one red-light-jumping camera, which rarely operates. I am not calling for a change in the speed limit on this important stretch of trunk road. I want motorists to abide by the 40 mph limit. Speed cameras are the most effective way to induce drivers to slow down. In surveys, 80 per cent. of drivers freely admit to speeding. The public rank it as a minor indiscretion, just above illegal parking offences. Research shows that speed cameras can cut accidents by up to 70 per cent. The trouble is that four out of five are switched off or empty of working film. It is essential that they should work and be seen to work.
Only one in 10 people photographed by the cameras are prosecuted. The 750,000 fixed-penalty tickets issued have raised £30 million, but the cameras cost between £9,000 and £16,000 a year to maintain. I welcome the Government's proposals to reinvest some of the revenue to install new cameras and maintain the existing ones properly. The hypothecation of motoring revenue for safety and environmental improvement, flagged by the Deputy Prime Minister, is also welcome. Only six new cameras were installed in West Sussex last year. Tests by the Sussex police show that computerised cameras that read number plates automatically can work. We have the necessary infrastructure and expertise.
I have made some practical and affordable proposals that could be instituted quickly and with minimal upheaval. I urge the Minister to ask the Highways Agency to institute such substantive measures.
I cannot leave the subject without mentioning the Worthing bypass, which remains the highest priority for my constituency, particularly Lancing, Sompting and north Worthing, which is rapidly becoming a pilot scheme for integrated gridlock. I am pleased that discussions between the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Government office for the south-east continue to identify the A27 Worthing bypass as a high priority.
I urge the Minister urgently to progress the scheme. I hope that we shall hear good news in the trunk road review later in the year. Although the bypass would certainly ease the amount of traffic using the A27 between Sompting and Shoreham, it would not necessarily solve the problem, because the traffic that remained would be induced to travel even faster. Even if the bypass is built, as I certainly hope, safety measures on the A27 would have to accompany it.
The Shoreham flyover is a mile or so down the road from the Sompting-to-Shoreham stretch. The A27 throughout my constituency is littered with accident black spots. The Shoreham flyover has been the subject of 12 personal injury accidents over the past few years. The number of accidents over the past three years has been increasing. They typically occur after dark, and at about the same spot: on the Shoreham slip road. Due to problems of light pollution of guidance systems at nearby Shoreham airport, the area of road is poorly lit. More discreet lighting, such as light guidance tubes, or more reflective chevrons could be used to improve the safety of the hazardous zone.
There was a most horrific accident in the new year on that very stretch of road. A young firewoman, Sarah Cotton, went to rescue two passengers who were trapped in a car that had crashed. The barrier had been smashed away, and the firewoman fell 34 ft on to hard ground below the flyover. She is remarkably lucky to be alive; she has only recently come out of hospital. She will need much treatment over many years to come, and her career in the fire service is obviously severely in doubt.
Alas, the Highways Agency has appeared reluctant to do anything about the black spot. Despite my constant letters and requests, it sees no reason to replace any of the 20-year-old barriers, which have been regularly weakened by crashes. Nor does it see a reason for improving the lighting, even just of the signs, or on the slip road, which I believe is the real cause of problem. That belief is certainly shared by members of the emergency services, who so tragically saw the problems at first hand.
It has been calculated that a fatal accident costs £800,000. A serious injury accident on the roads costs £90,000. The cost to the community—personally and psychologically to the families, schools and classmates of the victims I have mentioned—is immeasurable. For the cost of one fatality, we could install serious safety measures that might just defy the law of statistics and prevent another fatality or serious injury for many years to come. I therefore urge the Minister to press the Highways Agency to revisit the problem, and to come up with more substantial solutions as a matter of urgency.
The clock is ticking until the next inevitable tragic accident. The clock is ticking louder and louder the longer we leave it. I do not want to attend another public meeting next year and hear the tragic testimony of another parent whose child has been snatched from her by a needless accident at an accident black spot about which we all knew, which any responsible person could have seen coming. Accidents happen; accidents waiting to happen, as is so in this case, can and should be prevented. I therefore urge the Minister to facilitate some serious proposals in order to help my constituents.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) on having secured this debate, and on using it to highlight a matter which is obviously of very real concern to his constituents. He has highlighted the particular problems on the stretch of the A27 that runs through his constituency—a road with which I am not entirely unfamiliar, although I have not given it the same detailed


attention as my colleagues the Minister for Transport in London and Baroness Hayman, to whom he kindly referred.
The A27 forms part of the strategically important south coast route, linking the channel ports and the channel tunnel with Brighton and Worthing, and, westwards, with Portsmouth, Southampton and beyond. The five-mile length of the A27 to which the hon. Gentleman has referred goes through the urban area of Lancing, and acts as a boundary to the residential area at Shoreham. Most of the length is dual carriageway, with the exception of half a mile in Lancing.
Traffic flows are between 40,000 and 50,000 vehicles a day. The length west of the River Adur is lighted, and the speed limits vary from 70 mph on the dual-carriageway sections to 40 or 30 mph on the single-carriageway sections.
In the east, the new Brighton bypass, with the Southwick tunnel, was completed in spring 1996 and links with the existing dual carriageway north of Shoreham. Continuing westwards, the A27, including the River Adur viaduct, was completed in 1970, when the dual carriageway around Sompting was extended. Most of the dual carriageway is to a reasonable standard, but the road has side road accesses, particularly on to the existing single carriageway at Lancing. If I may be allowed a personal observation, it is not the most attractive example of motorway construction, because it makes a substantial impact on one of the most attractive parts of the Sussex countryside.
Towards the end of his speech, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the provision of more major improvements to the A27 between Sompting and Shoreham. The A27 Worthing-Lancing improvement scheme, which was designed to improve the flow and safety of traffic using the road and to improve the urban environment by removing through traffic from unsuitable roads, was withdrawn from the trunk road programme by the previous Administration in November 1996. The reasons were numerous.
First, the scheme was very expensive and the economic case for it was weakened when induced traffic was taken into account. Secondly, its cost meant that it could not have been constructed for many years. Thirdly, it would have had a serious adverse effect on the surrounding area. Finally, there was a lack of broad consensus on the appropriate route.
Following the withdrawal of the major improvement scheme in 1996, the then Secretary of State for Transport agreed to set out terms of reference for a study to consider what could be done to identify alternative, smaller-scale improvements to the existing A27, and to explore ways in which discussions could be taken forward with local authorities and the business community. However, no action was taken before the general election, and it has been overtaken by this Government's launch of our fundamental review of the roads programme and the role that trunk roads should play in an integrated transport strategy.
One output from that review will be a programme of studies to consider the most urgent problems for which schemes in the inherited programme are either inappropriate in the light of the integrated transport policy or not available. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that 1 cannot give any commitment to

including the A27 in his constituency in the list of highest-priority studies in advance of the publication of the review. Nevertheless, he made a forceful case for measures on the route.
West Sussex county council already receives funding from my Department for a transport package for Worthing, through the transport policies and programmes system. The county council has already drawn attention to the difficulties caused by the withdrawal of the Worthing-Lancing improvement proposal which make it necessary to review the package objectives.
Once the roads review is completed and the position concerning this section of the A27 is known, officials in the Government office for the south-east will be looking to work with West Sussex county council, Worthing borough council and the Highways Agency further to develop measures such as park and ride, improvements in public transport, and improved facilities for cyclists and pedestrians, aimed principally at encouraging the use of alternative transport to the motor car and so reducing congestion and improving the environment.
The personal accidents, injuries and fatalities along this stretch of the A27 are an obvious cause for concern. The hon. Gentleman drew attention to several harrowing accidents. The accident rate over three years there is higher than the national average, and I understand his wish for urgent action. The Highways Agency assures me that it is well aware of the problem over this section of road, and is doing all it can to improve safety for pedestrians and road users. It has taken some significant steps over the past few years to improve safety.
To take the various sections in turn, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the number of accidents over the past few years at the River Adur-Shoreham flyover, in particular where the eastbound and westbound slip roads join from the A283, which goes under the viaduct. I am told that, since the opening of the Brighton bypass in the spring of 1996, the number of accidents has fallen, probably because some of them were associated with the disruption caused by the building of the new road.
None the less, the agency has carried out an accident investigation of the junction, and has agreed to carry out some minor works to reduce the likelihood of accidents. Those include adding chevrons and painting the existing safety fence with reflective paint at the exits and entrances to the A27 junction, which should help to address some of the problems that the hon. Gentleman mentioned in connection with accidents at night. There are other measures that the agency may implement if accidents continue—for example, additional road studs, improving the white lining, and signing.
The chief executive of the Highways Agency wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 9 March in response to queries about the strength of the parapets across the Adur viaduct and other issues. He confirmed that the broken parapets had been replaced with a new section. The parapets provided when the bridge was built continue to be safe, although, if the bridge were built today, the barriers would be stronger. He pointed out that the agency could not replace that short length of broken parapet with the latest design, as the joint between the old and the new would be difficult, the fixings to the bridge would not be in the same position, and the sections would not match visually. The alternative would be to replace all the parapets, which could not be justified on cost grounds.


In response to the hon. Gentleman's query about the lack of direction signs and his request that lighting should be provided over the viaduct, the chief executive replied that it was not the agency's policy to light signs on unlighted stretches of road, and that to do so on the Shoreham flyover would set a costly precedent for the whole of the road network. In addition, there is a problem with the provision of lighting in that exposed location, partly because of the environmental context, but also because of the proximity of the airport—a point to which the hon. Gentleman alluded.
There have been a number of accidents around the Sussex Pad junction, several of which have involved students from Lancing college crossing the road to Shoreham airport, the Ricardos area and Shoreham town centre. The Worthing-Lancing improvement scheme would have overcome that problem with a grade-separated junction, but now that that has been dropped from the trunk road programme, the agency proposes to install improved traffic signals at that location, together with better crossing facilities. It will also keep the situation under review.
The hon. Gentleman drew particular attention to the Boundstone college area. There have been a number of serious accidents, including fatalities, at the pelican crossing near the college, which is situated immediately adjacent to the trunk road, and there has been a substantial campaign for action to improve the situation.
Representatives of the Highways Agency have had regular meetings with West Sussex county council, have attended a public meeting at Boundstone college, and have discussed what can be done with many parties, including the police, local councillors, and the headmistress of the school. The agency has recently implemented a low-cost safety scheme at the pelican crossing, comprising improved signing, new anti-skid surfacing and the relocation of stop lines further back from the crossing.
There is pressure to reduce the speed limit in the vicinity of the crossing from the present 40 mph, but the police do not favour that option. They prefer instead to reduce the overall speed of traffic by enforcement on a regular basis, and to assist that policy, the 40 mph repeater signs have been increased in size to help to get the message across.
Consideration has been given to the erection of speed cameras, not only in the vicinity of Boundstone college but elsewhere along the A27 between Sompting and Shoreham. The hon. Gentleman pressed that point, but I must tell him that the police have pointed out that cameras would be difficult to justify because of the high installation and administration costs, especially at a site

such as the Boundstone college crossing, where the statistics suggest—I cannot comment personally on the situation; I am simply giving the figures—that none of the casualties resulted from accidents in which speed was a primary factor.
To reduce the possibility of vehicles jumping the lights at the Boundstone crossing, which may be a more serious factor in causing accidents, a "red light" camera has been installed on the eastbound carriageway.
The Highways Agency will continue to liaise closely with the police about speed limits and enforcement over this length of road, and it will take forward any measures that are considered to be appropriate. The agency hopes that, in the longer term, it will be possible to provide a segregated crossing, with either a footbridge or a subway. That option is being considered, but it would be extremely expensive, as it would probably involve the relocation of complex services and road closures, which would almost certainly involve a public inquiry.
The Highways Agency is also looking at other measures to improve the safety of that section of the A27 road by the provision of pedestrian refuges and other low-cost options. In addition, the agency hopes to initiate the study of options to improve traffic management and enhance junction capacity through Worthing and Lancing. That will include consideration of bus priority measures and any other worthwhile schemes, which will be taken forward as and when funds permit.
The hon. Gentleman expressed some concern about the extent to which the Highways Agency is aware of and sensitive to the problems he has highlighted. I understand that the Highways Agency's chief executive, Lawrie Haynes, has agreed to meet the hon. Gentleman on site to discuss the various issues.

Mr. Loughton: indicated dissent.

Mr. Raynsford: That is what I have been told. I hope that, if the hon. Gentleman has not yet received the message, it will reach him shortly. The meeting will give him an opportunity to impress on Mr. Haynes the issues that he has raised tonight.
The matter is a serious one, and the Government do take it seriously. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that, although there are constraints—not least financial constraints—the Highways Agency wants to do what it can within those constraints to improve the safety of his constituents and of road users and pedestrians in the area. I thank the hon. Gentleman for highlighting these issues tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to One o'clock.